Debating E-voting throughout Europe: constitutional structures, parties' concepts and Europeans' perceptions

IF 2.3 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
I. Borucki, Florian Hartleb
{"title":"Debating E-voting throughout Europe: constitutional structures, parties' concepts and Europeans' perceptions","authors":"I. Borucki, Florian Hartleb","doi":"10.3389/fpos.2023.982558","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Techno-optimists with a more cosmopolitan focus agree that E-voting lies at the heart of implementing e-government and digitalization into democratic structures. The example of the “e-state” Estonia proves the relevance: E-voting has been in (legal) practice since 2005, and research can take much empirical evidence from this laboratory for digital innovation. The fact that Estonia is an exception to the rule within the European Union (EU) member states explains the comparative approach to the (possible) legal framework for eparticipation. With focusing on liberal democracies' constitutional predefinitions, voting procedures in the virtual age have not been compared yet. However, we have yet to learn much about the extent to which E-voting exists in European constitutions, even after one generation of intense debate about its possible implementation. Perceptions of E-voting matter because of the omnipresent digital transformation and discussions about how democracies (could) digitalize. E-voting represents a bottom-up part of top-down e-government and, through this, digital transformation. This research explores whether party policies, legal frameworks, and citizens' perceptions resemble E-voting on the national and European levels. To explore this question, several mixed-methods approaches are used. The question of “legalistic opportunity structures” is approached by relying on legal frameworks of European member states, parties' policies derived from their manifestos, and survey data from three Eurobarometer waves. Using a dictionary approach, the research design analyses the constitutions, electoral laws and manifestos of parties running for the European elections, combined with a classic analysis of surveys. Therefore, these sources are analyzed using several mixed methods approaches. The results have broader implications that we need to study in more detail what the digital transformation and the constitutionalization of electronic decision-making entail to develop a digital democracy and link it to a public sphere throughout Europe. Ultimately, it is analyzed whether the EU will push its member states to E-voting and implement E-voting for European elections. This would question the normative basing of democracy and how responsivity is brought into place.","PeriodicalId":34431,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2023.982558","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Techno-optimists with a more cosmopolitan focus agree that E-voting lies at the heart of implementing e-government and digitalization into democratic structures. The example of the “e-state” Estonia proves the relevance: E-voting has been in (legal) practice since 2005, and research can take much empirical evidence from this laboratory for digital innovation. The fact that Estonia is an exception to the rule within the European Union (EU) member states explains the comparative approach to the (possible) legal framework for eparticipation. With focusing on liberal democracies' constitutional predefinitions, voting procedures in the virtual age have not been compared yet. However, we have yet to learn much about the extent to which E-voting exists in European constitutions, even after one generation of intense debate about its possible implementation. Perceptions of E-voting matter because of the omnipresent digital transformation and discussions about how democracies (could) digitalize. E-voting represents a bottom-up part of top-down e-government and, through this, digital transformation. This research explores whether party policies, legal frameworks, and citizens' perceptions resemble E-voting on the national and European levels. To explore this question, several mixed-methods approaches are used. The question of “legalistic opportunity structures” is approached by relying on legal frameworks of European member states, parties' policies derived from their manifestos, and survey data from three Eurobarometer waves. Using a dictionary approach, the research design analyses the constitutions, electoral laws and manifestos of parties running for the European elections, combined with a classic analysis of surveys. Therefore, these sources are analyzed using several mixed methods approaches. The results have broader implications that we need to study in more detail what the digital transformation and the constitutionalization of electronic decision-making entail to develop a digital democracy and link it to a public sphere throughout Europe. Ultimately, it is analyzed whether the EU will push its member states to E-voting and implement E-voting for European elections. This would question the normative basing of democracy and how responsivity is brought into place.
讨论整个欧洲的电子投票:宪法结构、政党概念和欧洲人的看法
放眼世界的技术乐观主义者认为,电子投票是在民主结构中实施电子政务和数字化的核心。“电子国家”爱沙尼亚的例子证明了这种相关性:自2005年以来,电子投票一直在(法律)实践中,研究可以从这个实验室获得许多数字创新的经验证据。爱沙尼亚是欧盟(EU)成员国规则的例外,这一事实解释了对(可能的)电子参与法律框架的比较方法。由于关注自由民主的宪法预设,虚拟时代的投票程序尚未得到比较。然而,即使在对电子投票的可能实施进行了一代人的激烈辩论之后,我们还没有了解到电子投票在欧洲宪法中存在的程度。由于无处不在的数字化转型和关于民主国家如何数字化的讨论,人们对电子投票的看法很重要。电子投票代表了自上而下的电子政务中自下而上的一部分,并通过它实现了数字化转型。本研究探讨政党政策、法律框架和公民观念是否与国家和欧洲层面的电子投票相似。为了探索这个问题,使用了几种混合方法。“法律机会结构”问题的解决依赖于欧盟成员国的法律框架、政党宣言中衍生的政策,以及来自三次欧洲晴雨表的调查数据。采用词典的方法,研究设计分析了宪法、选举法和竞选欧洲选举的政党宣言,并结合了经典的调查分析。因此,使用几种混合方法对这些来源进行分析。这些结果具有更广泛的影响,我们需要更详细地研究数字化转型和电子决策的宪法化需要什么,以发展数字民主,并将其与整个欧洲的公共领域联系起来。最后,分析欧盟是否会推动其成员国进行电子投票,并在欧洲选举中实施电子投票。这将质疑民主的规范基础,以及如何落实责任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Frontiers in Political Science
Frontiers in Political Science Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
135
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信