CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 140Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationE-Government and Public ServicesInternet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-voting

Digital dilemmas: The unintended consequences of election technology

Open access
Cheeseman, Nic, Lynch, Gabrielle, Willis, Justin·2018·Democratization
DOI 10.1080/13510347.2018.1470165
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Digital technologies are increasingly used in elections around the world. Where the resources and capacity of the state are limited, some have argued that such technologies make it possible to rapidly “leapfrog” to cleaner and more credible elections. This article argues that the growing use of these technologies has been driven by the fetishization of technology rather than by rigorous assessment of their effectiveness; that they may create significant opportunities for corruption that (among other things) vitiate their potential impact; and that they carry significant opportunity costs. Indeed, precisely because new technology tends to deflect attention away from more “traditional” strategies, the failure of digital checks and balances often renders an electoral process even more vulnerable to rigging than it was before. These observations are not intended as a manifesto against the digitization of elections; apart from anything else, we argue that the drivers of the adoption of these new methods are too powerful to resist. But the analysis draws attention to the importance of more careful assessments of the problems, as well as the benefits, of such technologies – and to the need for more careful planning in their deployment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/13510347.2018.1470165

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The greatest gains from digitization come in countries where the quality of democracy is higher and the electoral commission more independent.

    “We can extend to identification systems generally t he conclusion that 'the greatest gains from digitization come in countries where the quality of democracy is higher and the electoral commission more independent' (Cheeseman et al., 2018, p. 3; see also Piccolino, 2016).”

    From The Sustainable Development Goals and 'legal identity for all': 'First, do no harm' (2021) · cites this paper as Cheeseman et al., 2018

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Cheeseman, N., Lynch, G., & Willis, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
  • Durham University (GB)
Corresponding author
Cheeseman, Nic
ORCID
Venue
Democratization
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2018-06-08
Volume
25
Issue
8
Pages
1397-1418
ISSN
  • 1351-0347 (ISSN-L)
  • 1743-890X
DOI
10.1080/13510347.2018.1470165
OpenAlex
W2799844154
Cited by
140
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3
FWCI
63.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Democratization (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council (ES/L002108/1, ES/L002345/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Internet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-voting
Keywords
electoral technology, digitalization of elections, electoral integrity, election rigging, corruption, leapfrogging, technology fetishism, checks and balances, electoral process, opportunity cost

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review