Electronic Voting in the United States: At the Leading Edge or Lagging Behind?

  • Frederic I. Solop


The first binding Internet election to take place anywhere in the world occurred in the United States during March 2000. Internet voting was offered as one option for casting a ballot in the Arizona Democratic Party primary election. Voters could also cast an early ballot by mail. Voters showing up at a polling location on Election Day could cast a traditional paper ballot or vote using a computer. The future of Internet voting in the United States looked quite bright at that historic moment. Turnout in the Arizona primary election doubled, the election took place without a breach in security, public opinion supported introducing Internet voting into all statewide elections, and young people (who typically vote at very low rates in the United States) expressed unprecedented enthusiasm for voting over the Internet. In the years following that election, momentum for Internet voting, and the United States slowed significantly. The 2002 federal and state elections took place without a trace of consideration for Internet voting, and the United States no longer occupies the ‘leading edge’ in the use of Internet technology for voting. In fact, the United States has fallen behind many European nations to a position more aptly thought of as ‘lagging behind.’


Presidential Election Primary Election Electoral College Electoral Vote United States Census Bureau 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Coleman, S. (2001) ‘Introduction’, in S. Coleman (ed.), Elections in the Age of the Internet: Lessons from the United States. London: Hansard Society.Google Scholar
  2. Dunbar, J. (2001) ‘Internet Voting Project Cost Pentagon $73,809 Per Vote’, <>Google Scholar
  3. Internet Policy Institute (2001) Report of the National Workshop on Internet Voting: Issues and Research Agenda, <>Google Scholar
  4. Jones, B. (2000) California Internet Voting Task Force Report, <>Google Scholar
  5. Morris, D. (1999) Los Angeles: Renaissance Books.Google Scholar
  6. National Commission on Federal Election Reform (2001) ‘To Assure Pride and Confidence in the Electoral Process’, <>Google Scholar
  7. Solop, F. I. (2001) ‘Digital Democracy Comes of Age: Internet Voting and the 2000 Arizona Democratic Primary Election’, Political Science and Politics, 34 (2) (June): 289–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Solop, F. (2000a) ‘The 2000 Arizona Democratic Primary Election: What We Learned From the First Binding Internet Election’, e-voting workshop, National Science Foundation and the University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  9. Solop, F. (2000b) ‘Digital Democracy Comes of Age in Arizona: Participation and Politics in the First Binding Internet Election’. The American Political Science Association meetings, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  10. Solop, F. (2000c) ‘Public Support for Internet Voting: Are We Falling Into a “Racial Ravine”?’ The American Association of Public Opinion Research meetings, Portland, OR.Google Scholar
  11. UCLA (2000) ‘The UCLA Internet Report: Surveying the Digital Future’, <>Google Scholar
  12. United States Census Bureau (2001) Home Computers and Internet Use in the United States (August), <>Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frederic I. Solop

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations