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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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.

Overview

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.

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 40 references

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Brigalia B., The Future of Elections. International Elections Advisory Council
  2. Carlos C. R., 2010, Democratic Deficits in the Philippines: What is to be Done
  3. Coalition of Domestic Election Observers (CODEO), 2013, Promoting a Peaceful, Transparent and Credible Biometric Voter Registration Process, Ghana’s Election 2012
  4. Evrensel A., 2010, Voter Registration in Africa: A Comparative Analysis
  5. Githongo John., 2016, Africa Confidential, 57
  6. Glidden J. A., 2000, Wisconsin Int’l Law Journal, 19, 353
  7. Golden M., 2014, Patterns of Breakdowns in Biometric Identification Machines in a National Election
  8. Harvey D., 2003, Macalester International, 13, 3
  9. Nwangwu C., 2015, Paper presented at the Department of Political Science
  10. Oppong, N. “Ghana’s 2016 Election Results: The Story of a Presidential Election.” Review of African Political Economy Blog, 2016. http://roape.net/2016/12/21/ghanas-2016-election-results-story-presidential-petition/.
  11. Orji N., Paper presented at Institute for Development Studies
  12. Yard M., 2010, International Foundation for Electoral Systems

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–138 of 138

Related

See all

Metadata

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