Internet Learning, Internet Voting: Using ICT in Estonia

Internet Learning, Internet Voting: Using ICT in Estonia

The adoption of Internet voting in Estonia has served to make its democracy unique among

western nations. There have been many studies of Internet voting in Estonia (e.g., Trechsel et

al. 2005, 2007, 2010; Alvarez, Hall, Trechsel 2009), the correlates of Internet use in elections,

and how these factors have changed over time, as Internet voting became more widespread.

However, the introduction of Internet voting has occurred at the same time as the use of the

Internet in politics generally has exploded, especially in the United States. Numerous studies of

the Internet in politics have found that voters are making more and more use of the Internet as

a tool for learning about politics, and campaigns are using this tool to inform voters about

politics in new and changing ways.

In Estonia, voters are able to use the Internet for both learning and for voting. We have

access to unique data regarding the use of the internet for political learning and campaigning in

a country with Internet voting. Since 2007, we have asked a standard set of questions

regarding election activities – both online and traditional activities – on nationwide services in

parliamentary, presidential, and European parliamentary elections. Using these survey data,

we can also see how election activities compare among Internet voters, early voters who vote

in-person, and Election Day voters across all types of elections (parliamentary, presidential, and

European Union). We can control for various demographic characteristics to determine if there

are differences in how internet voters and traditional voters view politics.

Thad E. Hall

Associate Professor

University of Utah

USA

[email protected]

Prepared for presentation at IPSA-Madrid 2012, July 8-12, 2012.

This paper was written by Thad E. Hall but also reflects research conducted by R. Michael

Alvarez (California Institute of Technology, Pasadena California, USA) and Alexander Trechsel

(European University Institute, Florence Italy). All errors in this paper are borne by Thad Hall.

1 | P a g e

I. Introduction

Over the past decade, there has been broad interest in the use of the Internet for various

government activities, including tax remittances, licensure, and even voting. Starting in 1998

and then in 2000, countries around the world began to experiment with using the Internet to

cast ballots in elections. In 2003, three cantons in Switzerland began to implement internet

voting as a standard mode of voting for certain elections, with certain limitations. In 2005,

Estonia became the first nation to make internet a standard mode of voting—along with in-

person early voting and Election Day precinct voting—in all elections (e.g., Alvarez, Hall, and

Trechsel 2009).

Internet voting has been used in the electoral process in various countries for many

reasons, including determining if it would increase turnout among special populations of voters,

to make voting more convenient, and to make voting a part of other e-government activities

(e.g., Alvarez and Hall 2004, 2008, Treschel and Mendez 2005). At the same time, concerns

exist about the security of Internet voting, with specific concerns raised regarding whether

these systems can be attacked through various schemes such as denial of service, spoofing,

viruses, and man-in-the-middle efforts (e.g., Jefferson et al. 2004; Lauer 2004; Schyren 2004).

The debate over Internet voting typically centers on these points.

In this paper, we consider the Internet as a tool for information processing in elections.

Voters need information to make informed voting decisions, even if such information is as

limited as finding out the party affiliation of a candidate or the meaning of a ballot referendum.

Voters have multiple means of getting this information, including newspapers, radio, television,

2 | P a g e

and the Internet. On the Internet, individuals also have a multitude of options for “pulling”

information to them, including online versions of traditional media (e.g., the BBC.com,

NYTimes.com, NPR.org, or CBSNews.com), as well as non-traditional media such as blogs and

organizational websites for activist organizations. The Internet also creates new means for

political parties and interest groups to “push” information to potential voters—either

augmenting or supplanting traditional direct mail, telephone, television, radio, and print

campaign advertizing, and personal contacting efforts—using email, sms, political websites, and

“viral” efforts to have supporters use the Internet to email potential supporters.

Since 2007, we have conducted surveys after each Estonian election to explore the way

in which voters used information communication technologies (ICT) in the campaign and how

campaigns and candidates used ICT to communicate to these voters. These surveys included

numerous questions regarding both traditional and Internet modes of information acquisition

by voters and modes of information push from candidates and political parties to voters. The

survey was designed so that voters (including Internet, early, and election day voters) and non-

voters alike were surveyed. Therefore, we are able to see which people use the Internet most

for information acquisition and the subsequent mode of voting that they used.

In this paper we focus on two sets of hypotheses. First, classical research on elections

and voting suggest that there will be variations in political information seeking based on

characteristics of the voter and characteristics of the election. For example, better-educated

voters would be expected to follow politics more and therefore be more engaged in political

activities online and also be targeted by campaigns more than will less educated voters.

Likewise, we would expect there to be more information search in lower information elections,

3 | P a g e

such as European Parliamentary elections, compared to Estonian parliamentary elections.

Second, and novel to the Estonian experience, we also expect there to be variations across

modes of voting, with Internet voters being more active online. However, we also expect all

voters will experience some modes of information transmission in elections – such as television

and radio broadcasts – equally.

2. Campaigning and Technologies

Technological inventions have advanced the playing field for politicians for years. The printing

press, radio, television, and the Internet have provided politicians useful outlets to get their

messages out to citizens. With each advancement, the availability of information has been

expanded making citizens better informed thus making the voting process more democratic.

Participating in the newest technologies is imperative for politicians to stay relevant and remain

competitive.1 These campaign venues – newspapers, radio, television, and the Internet – are

not unique to American political campaigns. European political campaigns utilize these

resources too, but with different strategies in mind. In order to understand the difference

between American and most European political campaigns, it is important to first identify the

differences between American and European political campaigns. Plasser and Plasser (2002)

find that American political campaigns are candidate-centered, highly individualized, money-

driven, capital intensive, highly professionalized, focused on likely voters rather than the

electorate at large, and pay large sums of money for television advertisements; whereas,

1 There is a large literature on the use of technology in campaigns. See Chadwick (2006) for a concise overview of

this literature.

4 | P a g e

European political campaigns are quite the opposite.2 European political campaigns, with a few

exceptions, are party-centered, labor-intensive, publicly financed, moderately professionalized,

focused on the electorate at large, and given free television time for political broadcasts. These

differences, along with historical events and cultural norms, have an influence on how

American and European politicians and political parties use campaign resources.

Newspaper circulation rates are high in the US, but vary throughout Europe. Southern

European countries have exceptionally low circulation rates that are similar to impoverished

Latin American and African countries. In other regions of Europe, there are high newspaper

circulation rates that rival the US including Austria, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Latvia, Estonia,

Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Finland. However, Russia and most countries of the former

Soviet Union have more limited newspaper availability.3 Daily newspapers in reach and

circulation vary to a considerable degree based on literacy rates, the price of newspapers, and

traditional cultural patterns. Heavy television viewing is a characteristic of the US and some

European countries including Greece, Italy, Spain, Russia, Belarus, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania,

Poland, and Estonia.4 In these European countries, it is also common to find that politicians are

given free airtime and the messaging is often positive in tone, unlike the US where airtime is

paid for and attacks on opponents are common. There are laws banning the purchase of

television time in Europe, and public access to television airtime is heavily regulated. Most

western European countries regard television time for ads as the most important advertising

2 Plasser, Fritz & Plasser, Gunda. (2002). Global Campaigning: A Worldwide Analysis of Campaign Professionals

and Their Practices. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers. p. 83. 3 Plasser & Plasser 2002, 185.

4 Plasser & Plasser 2002, 185.

5 | P a g e

medium; however, with recent breakthroughs in web campaigning this European outlook could

be changing.

The latest wave of technology, the Internet, has given political campaigning a facelift

and has dramatically changed how politicians campaign. It has changed campaigning more

than the printing press, radio, and television combined. American politicians have campaign

websites, fundraise online, blog, email citizens, and participate in a whole host of other

activities all made possible by the Internet (e.g., Chadwick 2006; Hall and Sinclair 2011). US

President Barack Obama’s online campaigning was especially successful in mobilizing voters and

receiving donations (e.g., Hendricks and Denton 2010). In European countries, the power of the

Internet is beginning to receive the recognition it has in America. For example, in the 2007

French presidential election, candidates Segolene Royale, Nicolas Sarkozy, and Jean-Marie Le

Pen embraced the Internet’s tools with online forums, debates, video blogs, and even one

candidate opening a headquarters for a virtual world of second life. Scholars have argued that

web campaigning is quickly becoming a global trend.5

The Internet is often depicted as having a great capacity to improve democracy and

democratic institutions.6 In this world-view, The Internet will increase democratic

accountability, character, and the integrity of political campaigns. A candidate’s campaign

promises become a contract with the citizens. The voters can hold the winner responsible in

the next election should neglect their promises, thus promoting accountability. In this world-

view, Information is also more readily accessible. A citizen can visit one candidate’s website,

5 Westcott, Kathryn. (2007). The Power of Online Campaigning. Retrieved February 23, 2009 from

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6287749.stm. 6 See, for example, Cornfield, Michael. (2004). Politics Moves Online: Campaigning and the Internet. New York:

Century Foundation Press. See also chapters 2 and 3 in Alvarez and Hall 2004.

6 | P a g e

review that candidate’s platforms, and then visit an opposing candidate’s website and review

that candidate’s platforms. Most candidates’ websites also allow visitors to email questions

allowing citizens to communicate with the candidate. Another unique characteristic of the

Internet, which is something that radio and television do not offer, is that citizens can be

interactive with one another and deliberate online. Using the Internet, information seeking is

inexpensive, conveniently, and easily on a global scope.

In much of the western world, the Internet is one of the main venues for candidates to

communicate with the electorate. Internet campaigning is evolving continuously with new

developments in online communities, new ways to contact individuals, and Internet connection

available even in the most remote areas. Internet campaigning has become crucial to American

political campaigns, but it appears that many European countries are becoming keen to the

idea of Internet campaigning as they observe and follow the American model.

One reasons that Internet voting developed in Estonia is that the country has a strong

legal and technological basis to support use of this technology (e.g., Madise 2008; Madise and

Vinkel 2011). For example, Estonia is the only country in Europe where access to the internet

legally a right; in addition, the country has a strong digital identification law, which requires

that all citizens be afforded a photo identification that includes that person’s unique digital

signature.7 Estonia is also a world leader in ICT spending per capita GDP. Like the United

States, Internet usage for government service provision is high. When Internet voting was

introduced in Estonia in 2005, 76% of Estonians also filed their taxes online. Since then, the

7 The Estonian Parliament approved a proposal in 2000 to guarantee Internet access to its citizens, as if it were a

constitutional right (http://www.vm.ee/estonia/kat_175/pea_175/2972.html). See also, “Internet Voting in

Practice” by Tarvi Martens (www.vvk.ee/english/tarvi0303.ppt)

7 | P a g e

government has pressed to move more and more services online.8 Over the five

implementations of Internet voting, the rate of Internet voting has increased dramatically, as

seen in Figure 1. The percentage of voters who cast a ballot online went from less than 2% in

2005 to 5.4% in 2007. From the 2007 parliamentary election to the 2011 parliamentary

election, the percentage of Internet voters grew just over four-fold, to 24.3% of the voting

population.

[Figure 1 here]

3. Survey and Methodology

The data used in this study comes from telephone surveys conducted immediately after the

each election – the 2007 Estonian Parliamentary Elections, the 2009 local government

elections, the 2009 European Parliamentary Elections, and the 2011 Parliamentary Elections –

held in Estonia from 2007 to 2011.9 In each case, the Estonian National Electoral Committee

drew the sample for us, using the national voter history file, in order to ensure that samples of

advance Internet voters, advance early voters, and Election Day voters were all included in the

study. We chose this sampling so that it would be possible to examine differences in political

behavior between Internet voters and non-Internet voters. OÜ Faktum & Ariko, an Estonian

survey research house, conducted the surveys, using a CATI (computer-assisted telephone

interviews) system. The survey asked voters about their voting experience, their ICT skills, their

8 See http://estonia.eu/about-estonia/economy-a-it/e-estonia.html for a discussion of these trends. (Last accessed

June 29, 2012). 9 The methodology for these surveys can be found in the report “Internet Voting in Estonia: A Comparative

Analysis of Four Elections since 2005.” The 2011 survey followed the same protocol.

8 | P a g e

experience seeking information in the election, their experience being sought out by political

parties and candidates, and basic political efficacy questions.10

There are two types of analyses presented here. First, we present an analysis of

variance, where we consider whether advance Internet voters, advance in-person voters, and

election day voters participate in politics differently. We then present the results of

multivariate analyses, where we use various forms of political participation as the dependent

variable. In each case, the dependent variables are dichotomous (yes/no) and therefore we

analyze these questions using a logistic regression. The independent variables in the analysis

are age, education, living in Tallinn (the country’s biggest urban area), vote mode, whether the

respondent speaks Estonian, and election type.

For ease of interpretation, we use Clarify (Tomz, Wittenberg, and King 2001) to produce

a predicted probability for the independent variables, compared to a baseline. In our analysis,

we compare the results to a hypothetical voter who is 47 years old, has a post-secondary

education, lives outside Tallinn, and voted on Election Day in-person.11 We then examine the

effects of moving the independent variables from zero to one (or, in the case of age, from age

30 to age 65), with all other variables held at their mean.

4. Information and the Internet in Estonia

In this analysis, we focus solely on people who use the Internet, as evidenced by respondents

answering “Yes” to the question, “Do You use the internet?” Across all four surveys, 74.4% of

respondents (N=3822) answered yes to this question. In our examination of these data, we

10

Whenever possible, we used survey questions that had been previously used in other large surveys. For

example, the questions on Internet participation were taken from the “Pew Internet and American Life” surveys. 11

The excluded category for election type is the 2007 Parliamentary election.

9 | P a g e

consider three types of political activities. First, we consider information gathering that occurs

through both the natural part of a campaign: political information in papers, on television, on

the radio, and contact with flyers, posters, and direct mail materials. We also consider

information people gather from emails, texts, and other internet communications. Second, we

consider more specifically how people use the Internet for information seeking – from looking

at campaign websites to watching online videos, to posting political commentary. Third, we

consider how campaigns push information to people, through traditional means (e.g.,

telephone calls or door-to-door campaigning) and through more modern means, such as email.

In Table 1, we present the results of an analysis of variance for each question in the

survey for each of the elections, where we compare the means across modes of voting. For

each item listen in Table 1, the respondent was asked: “Could you tell us, for each information

source whether you have obtained information on the issues at stake in the elections from

these sources during the campaign preceding the elections?” One thing that we see is that

some forms of political information are relatively unavoidable. Most people see news coverage

on television of the campaigns and large percentages of voters, regardless of their mode of

voting. Likewise, radio and editorial content in print media are also rather ubiquitous.

[Table 1 here]

When we consider voters encountering other forms of political activities, we see that

there are differences often. Internet voters consistently state they come into contact with

direct mail materials less than in-person voters, and also claim to encounter political ads less as

well. Internet voters also seem to encounter party tents and stalls in public places less. One

very interesting finding is that people who are online also seem to talk about politics more with

10 | P a g e

family and friends – and at work – more than do in-person voters. This is interesting because it

suggests the possibility that Internet voters are important nodes of information, connecting

people who are not online information seekers with information they would not normally have.

Finally, at the bottom of Table 1, we consider specific internet- and ICT-related forms of

Internet communications. Note here that Internet voters are clearly communicating about

politics via the Internet, again suggesting that these people may be important information

connectors. However, we see that text messaging and political emails from political actors tend

to be less commonly experienced for all voters, including Internet voters.

In Table 2, we see that internet voters also tend to look online for information about

candidates and parties, and look online specifically for information regarding how to vote, at

much higher rates than do in-person voters. For most elections, it is an order of magnitude

higher. However, one thing to note here is that, for the European Parliamentary Election, we

do see a bump in online activity for all voters, compared to the elections that immediately

preceded and followed it. This election was likely a low information election and more people

went to the internet to find information about the parties and candidates. Most interesting

though is that, for the other online activities examined, there are not differences between

Internet and in-person voters. Most voters just don’t sign up for emails, post commentaries, or

forward commentaries to others, and relatively few view online videos about the elections.

[Table 2 about here]

In Table 3, we examine how political parties and candidates campaigned and whether

Internet, early, or Election Day voters were contacted similarly. Door-to-door canvassing and

telephone get out the vote efforts are not used often in Estonian. The most important way to

11 | P a g e

be contacted is through direct mail and all voters—regardless of the vote mode they used—

were equally likely to be contacted using this method. Internet voters were twice as likely to be

contacted via an email compared to either early or Election Day voters.

[Table 3 about here]

We expect that there will be rather linear affects for education and age – better-

educated people will use the internet for political purposes more than will less educated

people, and young people will use the Internet more than do older citizens. We also expect

that Internet voters will use the Internet more than will other voters who also have Internet

access. We also expect that the type of election will matter. In general, use of the Internet in

politics should grow across elections but we also expect that, for the European parliamentary

elections especially, voters may use the Internet more because there is less familiarity with the

candidates and parties in this election. Finally, we include a variable for speaking Estonian

primarily as a control variable.

5 Multivariate Analyses

In the analysis of Internet use, we are including only individuals who answered that they do use

the Internet. We start our consideration in Table 4, focusing on two general questions

regarding Internet use: (1) do they use the internet to learn about politics, and (2) did they

read about the elections online? We see that, as we would expect, better-educated and

younger voters use the Internet more for political learning, as do Internet voters. A person

aged 30 is, all things being equal, 13 percentage points more likely to use the Internet for

political information compared to a 65 year old. Internet voters are 11.4 percentage points

more likely to use the internet to learn about politics compared to an Election Day voter. If we

12 | P a g e

think about these factors collectively, we can compare a hypothetical college educated Internet

voter with an Election Day voter with a secondary education. The Internet voter is 21

percentage points more likely to vote online compared to the Election Day voter. We similarly

see that internet voters are roughly 14 percentage points more likely to have read about the

elections online.

[Table 4 here]

Next, we examine the use of the internet for learning about candidate positions or to

check the accuracy of claims made by voters. In Table 5, we see that, in both models, the

change of a hypothetical voter’s age from 30 to 65 has a dramatic effect on their likelihood of

going online. We also see that Internet voters are much more likely than Election Day voters to

have gone online to find information about candidates and the accuracy of their claims. Finally,

we see that, over time, use of the internet has grown, as seen by the significance of the

variables for each election.

[Table 5 here]

Now before we consider information pull from voters further, we first consider in Table

6 the information push that voters experienced. Here, we only see significance for having

received an email from candidates or parties. Internet voters are significantly more likely to

have received such an email. Less educated voters and older voters are less likely also to have

received such emails. These emails also were significant in the 2011 parliamentary election,

compared to the other elections. There is no difference for voters receiving telephone calls;

however, in 2011, campaigns seem to have started visiting voters more.

[Table 6 here]

13 | P a g e

When we consider how voters received information about the campaign, we start in

Table 7 by considering the primarily media sources – newspapers, radio, and television. The

first point of note is that over time, the amount of information voters receive from television,

print, or radio have declined compared to the 2007 election. We do see that, for television

news, that older individuals use this news source more than do younger people. We also see

that, for newspapers, that individuals with less than a post-secondary education read the paper

less than those with post-secondary education.

[Table 7 here]

In Table 8, we consider three types of political activities that are done online –

communicating online, watching political videos, and rating candidates in online polls and in

other forum. In these models we see that Internet voters participate more in these activities

compared to precinct voters, by between 4 and 6 percentage points. We also see a large effect

here for age; people who are 30-years-old participate in these activities more than 20

percentage points more than do people who are 65-years-old or older.

[Table 8 here]

Some forms of political participation are harder to avoid, like direct mailings received

from candidates and parties, and political conversations. When we examine these forms of

participation, in Table 9, we see that direct mailings were reported as more important by voters

with an educational attainment lower than post-secondary, and by in-person voters. Internet

voters were almost 10 percentage points less likely than Election Day voters to report getting

information about the election from direct mailings.

[Table 9 here]

14 | P a g e

When we consider political conversations, we see that such conversations are most

likely to occur among younger people, better-educated people, and among Internet voters.

Less well-educated people participate in school or work place discussions between 5.7 and 18

percentage points less than does a similar person with a post-secondary degree. A person who

votes online talks about politics and garners information this way 56-percentage points more

than do Election Day voters. Interestingly, compared to 2007, we also see a trending down in

political conversations over time. This is especially true with the European Parliamentary

Elections but with the other recent elections as well.

Conclusions

When we consider election-related activities in Estonia and variations in those activities

between Internet voters and in-person voters, we see that there are basic differences between

Internet and Election Day voters. Internet voters engage in much more online political

information seeking compared to in-person voters, even when we control for access to the

Internet. These voters read more about politics online, engage in more Internet information

search, and participate in more online activities like rating candidates. Moreover, they are

doing this within the context of the overall informational seeking environment, one in which

Internet voters see as much political news on television, radio, and in the paper compared to

Election Day voters.

We also have some evidence that Internet voters act as hubs in the informational

process. Internet voters are more likely to engage in political conversations at work and school.

In essence, they take their knowledge about politics and express that information to others

who do not use the Internet as much, and well as with other Internet voters, which enhances

15 | P a g e

the knowledge base of those around them. It is important to consider that that Internet does

not replace traditional election activities or information for most voters. Instead, it expands

their knowledge base and adds a new layer of information. This information can then be

transmitted through traditional modes of communication, like a conversation, to others who

are not online.

16 | P a g e

Bibliography

Altman, M., & Klass, G. (2005). Current Research in Voting, Elections, and Technology. Social

Science Computer Review , 23, 3: 269-273.

Alvarez, R. Michael and Hall, Thad E. (2004): Point, Click, and Vote: The Future of Internet

Voting. Brookings Institution Press.

Alvarez, R. Michael and Hall, Thad E. (2008): Electronic Elections: The Perils and Promises of

Digital Democracy. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Alvarez, R. Michael, Hall, Thad E., and Trechsel, Alexander H. (2009): Internet voting in

comparative perspective: The case of Estonia. PS (July 2009): 497-505.

Anderson, D. M., & Cornfield, M. (2003). The Civic Web: Online Politics. Ranham, Maryland:

Rowman and Littlefield.

Best, Samuel J. and Brian S. Krueger. 2005. Analyzing the Representativeness of Internet

Political Participation. Political Behavior. 27, 2: 183-216.

Bimber, B. (2003). Information and American Democracy: Technology in the Evolution of

Political Power. NY: Cambridge University Press.

Bimber, B., & Davis, R. (2003). Campaigning Online: The Internet in U.S. NY: Oxford University

Press.

Browning, G. (1996). Electronic Democracy: Using the Internet to Influence American Politics. .

Wilton, CT: Pemberton Press.

Chadwick, A. (2006). Internet Politics: States, Citizens, and New Communication Technologies.

NY: Oxford University Press.

17 | P a g e

Cornfield, M. (. (2004). Politics Moves Online: Campaigning and the Internet. NY: The Century

Foundation.

Drechsler, Wolfgang and Madise, Ülle (2002). E-voting in Estonia. Trames 6, No. 3: 234-244.

Foot, K., & Schneider, S. (2006). Web Campaigning. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Frantzich, S. (2003). Cyberage Politics 101: Mobility, Technology, and Democracy. NY: Peter

Lang Publishing.

Gerlach, Jan and Gasser, Urs (2009): Three case studies from Switzerland: E-voting. Berkman

Center for Internet and Society at Harvard. March 2009. Accessible from:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Gerlach-

Gasser_SwissCases_Evoting.pdf

Graff, G. (2007). The First Campaign: Globalization, the Web, and the Race for the White House.

New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Hara, N., & Estrada, Z. (2005). Analyzing the Mobilization of Grassroot Activities via the

Internet: A Case Study. Journal of Information Science , 31, 1: 503-514.

Jefferson, David, Rubin, Aviel D, Simons, Barbara, and Wagner, David (2004): Analyzing internet

voting security. Communications of the ACM 47, No. 10: 59-64. Retrieved from:

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2658f82g

Kenski, Kate and Natalie Jomini Stroud. 2006. “Connections Between Internet Use and Political

Efficacy, Knowledge, and Participation.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media.

50, 2: 173 - 192.

Klotz, R. (2004). The Politics of Internet Communication. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and

Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

18 | P a g e

Klotz, R. (2007). Internet Campaigning for Grassroots and Astroturf Support. Social Science

Computer Review , 25, 1: 3-11.

Krueger, Brian S. 2002. "Assessing the Potential of Internet Political Participation in the United

States: A Resource Approach." American Politics Research. 30, 5: 476-498.

Lauer, Thomas W. (2004): The risk of e-Voting. Electronic Journal of E-government 2, No. 3:

177-186.

Madise, Ülle (2008): Legal and political aspects of the Internet voting: Estonian case. Reniu,

Josep M. (Ed.). E-voting: the last electoral revolution (45 - 59). Barcelona: Institut de

Ciencies Politiques i Socials

Madise, Ülle and Tarvi Martens (2006): "E-voting in Estonia 2005. The first practice of country-

wide binding Internet voting in the world. in Electronic Voting 2010. Robert Krimmer

ed. Gesellschaft für Informatik. Bonn, Germany.

Madise, Ülle and Vinkel, Priit (2011): Constitutionality of remote internet voting: The Estonian

perspective. Juridica International 18:4-16.

Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C., & McNeal, R. 2008. Digital Citizenship: The Internet, Society, and

Participation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Mossberger, Karen, Caroline Tolbert, and Mary Stansbury. 2003. Virtual Inequality: Beyond the

Digital Divide. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Norris. Pippa. 2001. Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet

Worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

19 | P a g e

Park, H., & Perry, J. (2008). Do Campaign Websites Really Matter in Electoral Civic

Engagement?: Empirical Evidence from the 2004 Post-Election Internet Tracking Survey.

Social Science Computer Review. , 26, 2: 190-212.

Reniu, Josep M. (Ed.) (2008): E-voting: the last electoral revolution (45 - 59). Barcelona: Institut

de Ciencies Politiques i Socials

Schmidt et al. (2009): Developing a legal framework for remote electronic voting. In P. Ryan and

B. Schoenmakers (eds.) 2009. E-Voting and Identity: Second International Conference,

VOTE-ID 2009, Luxembourg, September 2009 Proceedings. Berlin: Springer-Verlag: 92-

105.

Schryen, Guido (2004): Security aspects of internet voting. Proceedings of the 37th Annual

Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. http://epub.uni-

regensburg.de/21303/1/Schryen_-_Security_Aspects_of_Internet_Voting_-_HICSS.pdf

(2004-08-01).

Shane, P. (2004). Democracy Online: The Prospects for Political Renewal Through the Internet.

New York: Rutledge Press.

Tolbert, Caroline J. and Ramona S. McNeal. 2003. “Unraveling the Effects of the Internet on

Political Participation?” Political Research Quarterly. 56, 2: 175-185.

Trechsel, Alexander & Mendez, Fernando (eds.) (2005): The European Union and E-voting:

Addressing the European Parliament’s Internet Voting Challenge. London: Routledge

Trechsel, Alexander et al. (2010): Internet voting in Estonia: A comparative analysis of four

elections since 2005. http://www.coe.int/t/dgap/democracy/activities/ggis/e-

20 | P a g e

voting/evoting_documentation/GGIS_2010_15_Internet_voting%20_in%20_Estonia%20

2005-2009%20E%20_2_.pdf

Trechsel, Alexander H. et al. (2007): Internet Voting in the March 2007 Parliamentary Elections

in Estonia. Report for the Council of Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Trent, JS and RV Friedenberg. 2007. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and

Practices. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Wagner, K. M. & Gainous, J. 2009. "Electronic Grassroots: Does Online Campaigning Work?"

The Journal of Legislative Studies, 15, 4: 502-520.

21 | P a g e

Table 1. Information Experiences: Comparisons by Vote Mode and Election

2007 national elections

2009 European elections

2009 local elections


Mean Sig. Mean Sig Mean Sig. Mean Sig.

Info: Editorial content, papers and magazines

Election day 80.4%

0.35

75.4%

0.17

72.4%

0.63

70.2%

0.95 advance at polls 84.0% 83.3% 76.9% 71.6%

advance Internet 77.7% 72.0% 72.5% 69.8%

Info: radio broadcasts about elections

Election day 79.2%

0.00

71.4%

0.00

64.0%

0.06

65.3%

0.00 advance at polls 84.0% 79.6% 63.9% 76.1%


Info: TV broadcasts about elections

Election day 94.0%

0.91

85.3%

0.09

83.4%

0.98

87.8%

0.99 advance at polls 94.0% 96.3% 84.3% 87.5%


Info: leaflets, flyers

Election day 70.9%

0.00

45.5%

0.00

54.1%

0.00

47.3%

0.00 advance at polls 70.0% 53.7% 54.6% 60.2%


Info: political ads in newspapers and magazines

Election day 54.7%

0.00

37.9%

0.15

39.2%

0.02

42.0%

0.02 advance at polls 57.0% 44.4% 39.8% 44.3%


Info: posters in the streets

Election day 42.3%

0.00

24.1%

0.47

33.7%

0.41

22.4%

0.00 advance at polls 47.0% 16.7% 26.9% 14.8%


Info: party's election tents, stalls in public

Election day 12.8%

0.00

12.5%

0.00

11.9%

0.17

9.0%

0.12 advance at polls 14.0% 7.4% 8.3% 5.7%


Info: direct-mailing materials

Election day 52.8%

0.00

37.5%

0.02

44.5%

0.06

46.1%

0.00 advance at polls 58.0% 48.1% 44.4% 55.7%


Info: discussions at workplace/ school

Election day 24.2%

0.00

21.4%

0.06

20.1%

0.09

18.4%

0.00 advance at polls 23.0% 25.9% 19.4% 11.4%


Info: discussions among family, friends

Election day 51.7%

0.00

55.4%

0.00

59.9%

0.18

64.5%

0.49 advance at polls 64.0% 63.0% 67.6% 65.9%


Info: communications on the internet

Election day 8.3%

0.00

13.4%

0.00

9.9%

0.00

7.8%

0.00 advance at polls 5.0% 9.3% 10.2% 11.4%


Info: text messages

Election day 4.2%

0.52

4.9%

0.32

6.1%

0.85

6.5%

0.21 advance at polls 3.0% 9.3% 4.6% 2.3%


Info e-mails

Election day 4.5%

0.87

6.7%

0.10

4.4%

0.00

5.7%

0.48 advance at polls 5.0% 7.4% 6.5% 5.7%


Info: somewhere else(partisan happening, public debates, etc)

Election day 9.4%

0.11

6.3%

0.38

5.8%

0.03

9.4%

0.38 advance at polls 8.0% 3.7% 13.0% 12.5%


22 | P a g e

Table 2. Online Information Seeking: Comparisons by Vote Mode and Election


2009 European Elections




Look online about party or candidate positions on the issues or voting records

Election day 13.7% 0.00 28.4% 0.00 29.7% 0.00 35.9% 0.00

advance at polls 13.7% 34.6% 19.0% 26.5%


Look online for whom to vote

Election Day 11.6%

0.00

30.1%

0.00

22.3%

0.00

28.9%

0.01 Advance at Polls 20.0% 7.7% 22.2% 26.5%

Advance Internet 29.8% 43.6% 47.0% 41.8%

Look online to check the accuracy of political claims

Election Day 7.5%

0.02

11.9%

0.00

17.3%

0.01

22.5%

0.29 Advance at Polls 14.0% 23.1% 11.1% 14.7%


Watch online video clips about the political party or candidates

Election Day 9.5%

0.72

20.1%

0.11

16.8%

0.05

20.4%

0.43 Advance at Polls 10.0% 19.2% 27.0% 14.7%


Sign up to receive email from political party or candidates

Election Day 1.4%

0.95

0.7%

0.07

3.5%

0.85

2.1%

0.49 Advance at Polls 2.0% 0.0% 3.2% 5.9%


Post online your own political commentary

Election Day 4.8%

0.65

6.7%

0.86

4.0%

0.34

3.5%

0.09 Advance at Polls 6.0% 3.8% 4.8% 11.8%


Forward or post someone else's political commentary

Election Day 2.7%

0.15

1.5%

0.71

1.5%

0.11

2.1%

0.45 Advance at Polls 4.0% 3.8% 4.8% 2.9%


23 | P a g e

Table 3. Campaign Contacts: Comparisons by Vote Mode and Election


2009 Euro Parliament elections




Received MAIL urging you to vote for a particular political party/candidate

Election day 57.0% 0.29 19.6% 0.08 19.2% 0.02 34.3% 0.64

advance at polls 66.0% 22.2% 17.6% 38.6%


Received EMAIL urging you to vote for a particular political party/candidate

Election day 7.5% 0.00 5.8% 0.00 7.6% 0.00 9.4% 0.00

advance at polls 6.0% 0.0% 6.5% 5.7%


Been VISITED AT HOME by someone urging you to vote for a particular party or candidate

Election day 5.3% 0.38 3.1% 0.08 4.9% 0.09 7.8% 0.32

advance at polls 3.0% 1.9% 9.3% 11.4%


Received a phone call urging you to vote for a particular political party/candidate

Election day 5.7% 0.35 4.9% 0.74 5.5% 0.86 6.9% 0.54

advance at polls 4.0% 7.4% 5.6% 10.2%


24 | P a g e

Table 4. Political Information Seeking: Logistic Regressions and First Differences

Do You use the Internet in order to

inform yourself about politics?

In the months leading up to the elections,

did you hear or read anything online about

the national elections?

Coefficient Standard

Error

First

Difference


Error

First

Difference

Age -0.009 0.003 -13.1% -0.018 0.003 -25.9%

Elementary Education -0.541 0.278 -12.1% -0.366 0.309 -9.3%

Secondary Education -0.398 0.110 -9.7% -0.246 0.122 -5.9%

Vocational Education -0.262 0.095 -6.4% -0.117 0.108 -2.6%

Lives in Tallinn -0.049 0.087 -1.2% 0.043 0.101 1.0%

Voted In-Person Early -0.052 0.169 -1.2% 0.115 0.175 2.5%

Voted on Internet 0.471 0.097 11.4% 0.590 0.107 13.9%

Speaks Estonian -0.230 0.143 -5.7% 0.004 0.160 0.3%

2009 Euro Parliament

Election

-0.182 0.110 -4.3% 0.400 0.130 9.1%

2009 Local Election -0.030 0.106 -0.7% 0.415 0.125 9.4%

2011 Parliamentary Election 0.138 0.112 3.6% 0.249 0.131 5.8%

Constant 0.243 0.201 0.740 0.234

Number of Cases 2648 2182

LR chi2(11) 74.5 97.01

Prob > chi2 0 0

Log likelihood -1776.316 -1398.926

25 | P a g e

Table 5. Candidate and Party Information Seeking: Logistic Regressions and First Differences

Look for more information online about

political party or candidates' positions on

the issues or voting records

Use the internet to check the accuracy of

claims made by or about the political party

or candidates


Error

First

Difference


Error

First

Difference

Age -0.029 0.004 -37.3% -0.029 0.004 -24.2%

Elementary Education -1.037 0.364 -19.4% -0.400 0.408 -4.8%

Secondary Education -0.434 0.127 -9.7% -0.175 0.149 -2.5%

Vocational Education -0.195 0.110 -4.5% -0.162 0.131 -2.4%

Lives in Tallinn 0.010 0.102 0.1% -0.043 0.120 -0.7%

Voted In-Person Early -0.319 0.212 -7.1% 0.032 0.249 0.6%

Voted on Internet 0.703 0.115 15.9% 0.472 0.141 6.9%

Speaks Estonian 0.342 0.177 7.6% 0.027 0.207 0.3%


Election

0.586 0.135 14.0% 0.640 0.165 10.7%

2009 Local Election 0.674 0.132 16.0% 0.556 0.163 9.2%

2011 Parliamentary Election 0.840 0.138 20.2% 0.746 0.167 13.1%

Constant -0.324 0.252 -0.881 0.301


LR chi2(11) 225.22 96.48

Prob > chi2 0 0

Log likelihood -1355.355 -1060.004

26 | P a g e

Table 6: Traditional Mobilization Pushes by Parties: Logistic Regressions and First Differences

Received EMAIL urging you to

vote for a particular political party

or candidate

Been VISITED AT HOME by

someone urging you to vote for a

particular party or candidate

Received a phone call urging you

to vote for a particular political

party or candidate


Error

First

Difference


Error

First

Difference

Coefficien

t

Standard

Error

First

Difference

Age -0.024 0.004 -13.5% 0.005 0.006 1.2% 0.006 0.005 2.2%

Elementary

Education

-1.077 0.403 -6.7% 0.234 0.348 1.0% -0.393 0.348 -1.8%

Secondary

Education

-0.471 0.164 -3.9% 0.228 0.242 1.0% -0.288 0.216 -1.5%

Vocational

Education

-0.320 0.140 -2.8% -0.015 0.230 0.0% -0.249 0.188 -1.3%

Lives in Tallinn 0.253 0.125 2.4% 0.292 0.201 1.2% 0.193 0.170 1.2%

Voted In-Person

Early

-0.413 0.272 -3.2% 0.244 0.257 1.1% 0.093 0.255 0.7%

Voted on Internet 0.520 0.149 4.8% -0.302 0.224 -1.2% 0.098 0.190 0.6%

Speaks Estonian 0.665 0.254 4.9% -0.072 0.281 -0.4% 0.126 0.272 0.6%

2009 European

Election

0.096 0.173 1.0% -0.859 0.361 -2.6% -0.122 0.227 -0.6%

2009 Local Election 0.287 0.164 2.9% 0.253 0.251 1.0% -0.059 0.215 -0.3%

2011 Parliament

Election

0.391 0.168 4.0% 0.705 0.242 3.2% 0.135 0.215 0.9%

Constant -1.795 0.341 -3.444 0.464 -3.060 0.411

Number of Cases 2873 2873 2873

LR chi2(11) 158.2 42.45 8.35

Prob > chi2 0 0 0.6821

Log likelihood -1007.003 -514.30 -674.09

27 | P a g e

Table 7: Information from Traditional Media: Logistic Regressions and First Differences

Information from editorial

contributions to newspapers and

magazines

Information from radio broadcasts

concerning the elections

Information from TV broadcasts

concerning the elections


Error

First

Difference Coefficient

Standard

Error

First


Standard

Error

First

Difference

Age 0.003 0.003 3.0% 0.029 0.002 36.6% 0.011 0.003 6.9%

Elementary

Education

-0.463 0.162 -9.5% 0.329 0.172 6.9% -0.028 0.219 -0.5%

Secondary

Education

-0.254 0.109 -4.8% 0.127 0.101 2.6% 0.027 0.140 0.2%

Vocational

Education

-0.195 0.097 -3.7% -0.050 0.088 -1.2% 0.057 0.124 0.5%

Lives in Tallinn -0.138 0.089 -2.7% 0.003 0.083 0.1% 0.140 0.117 1.5%

Voted In-Person

Early

0.171 0.138 2.8% 0.296 0.132 6.5% 0.158 0.182 1.6%

Voted on Internet -0.124 0.095 -2.3% 0.025 0.087 0.5% -0.008 0.122 -0.1%

Speaks Estonian -0.159 0.138 -2.8% -0.275 0.128 -5.9% 0.248 0.163 3.0%

2009 Euro

Parliament Election

-0.325 0.112 -6.3% -0.206 0.103 -4.8% -0.215 0.145 -2.5%

2009 Local Election -0.408 0.105 -8.0% -0.415 0.096 -9.7% -0.467 0.130 -5.7%

2011 Parliamentary

Election

-0.540 0.109 -10.8% -0.373 0.103 -8.7% -0.189 0.147 -2.1%

Constant 1.632 0.203 -0.380 0.183 1.307 0.246


LR chi2(11) 45.61 218.25 29.42

Prob > chi2 0 0 0.0019

Log likelihood -1934.875 -2166.355 -1330.293

28 | P a g e

Table 8: Information from Internet Activities: Logistic Regressions and First Differences

Information from communications on

the internet

Watched Political Videos Online Ratings of Candidates


Error

First


Standard

Error

First


Standard

Error

First

Difference

Age -0.040 0.003 -28.3% -0.030 0.004 -25.3% -0.018 0.004 -18.5%

Elementary Education -1.337 0.356 -10.2% -0.573 0.430 -6.8% -0.446 0.386 -7.0%

Secondary Education -0.553 0.133 -5.7% 0.012 0.147 0.3% -0.270 0.139 -4.7%

Vocational Education -0.321 0.113 -3.6% -0.059 0.130 -0.8% -0.003 0.118 -0.1%

Lives in Tallinn 0.130 0.102 1.5% -0.119 0.121 -1.7% 0.183 0.109 3.5%

Voted In-Person Early 0.067 0.197 0.9% 0.205 0.231 3.2% -0.022 0.225 -0.1%

Voted on Internet 0.539 0.119 6.3% 0.274 0.138 4.0% 0.464 0.127 8.4%

Speaks Estonian 0.088 0.176 1.0% 0.176 0.208 2.4% 0.642 0.212 10.3%


Election

0.106 0.128 1.4% 1.165 0.173 21.3% 0.716 0.143 14.8%

2009 Local Election -0.121 0.127 -1.3% 0.945 0.172 16.5% 0.348 0.144 7.0%

2011 Parliamentary

Election

-0.028 0.135 -0.3% 0.954 0.179 17.2% 0.221 0.153 4.6%

Constant 0.006 0.241 -1.181 0.307 -1.518 0.290


LR chi2(11) 319.97 114.45 100.69

Prob > chi2 0 0 0

Log likelihood -1437.575 -1210.4683 1210.4683

29 | P a g e

Table 9: Information from Conversations and Direct Mail: Logistic Regressions and First Differences

Information from direct-mailing materials Information from discussions at Your

workplace/educational institution

Coefficient Standard Error First Difference Coefficient Standard Error First Difference

Age -0.003 0.002 -4.3% -0.027 0.003 -29.6%

Elementary Education 0.054 0.146 1.2% -1.354 0.242 -18.3%

Secondary Education 0.124 0.097 3.0% -0.602 0.111 -10.3%

Vocational Education 0.182 0.086 4.3% -0.316 0.093 -5.7%

Lives in Tallinn -0.138 0.080 -3.2% -0.187 0.089 -3.5%

Voted In-Person Early 0.298 0.114 7.2% 0.102 0.144 1.9%

Voted on Internet -0.402 0.084 -9.6% 0.298 0.096 5.6%

Speaks Estonian -0.177 0.117 -4.2% -0.268 0.135 5.3%


Election

-0.219 0.100 -5.2% -0.253 0.109 -4.6%

2009 Local Election -0.030 0.092 -0.7% -0.461 0.106 -8.1%

2011 Parliamentary

Election

0.018 0.098 0.4% -0.290 0.111 -5.2%

Constant 0.032 0.173 0.898 0.195


LR chi2(11) 79.85 284.35

Prob > chi2 0 0

Log likelihood -2308.273 -1922.376

30 | P a g e

Figure 1. Internet Voting Usage: 2005 – 2011

Documents

Internet Learning, Internet Voting: Using ICT in Estonia