This article constructs explanatory theory on trust in e-voting, a term that refers to the use of stand-alone IT artefacts in voting stations. We study e-voting as a techno-organisational arrangement embedded in the process of elections and the broader socio-economic context of a country. Following a critical realist approach, we apply retroduction and retrodiction principles to build theory by complementing existing studies of e-voting with insights from an in-depth case study of elections in India. First, we seek evidence of trust in e-voting in the responses of the public to the announcement of election results. Then we derive the following four mechanisms of trust creation or loss: the association of e-voting with the production of positive democratic effects; the making of e-voting part of the mission and identity of electoral authorities; the cultivation of a positive public attitude to IT with policies for IT-driven socio-economic development; and, in countries with turbulent political cultures, a clear distinction between the experience of voting as orderly and experiences of malpractice in other election tasks. We suggest that these mechanisms explain the different experience with e-voting of different countries. Attention to them helps in assessing the potential of electoral technologies in countries that are currently adopting them, especially fragile democracies embarking upon e-voting.
AguilarE. E.PacekA. C. (2000). Macroeconomic conditions, voter turnout, and the working-class/economically disadvantaged party vote in developing countries. Comparative Political Studies, 33, 995–1017.
2.
AhujaA.ChhibberP. (2012). Why the poor vote in India: ‘If I dont vote, I am dead to the state’. Studies in Comparative International Development, 47, 389–410.
3.
AltmanD.Pérez-LińánA. (2002). Assessing the quality of democracy: Freedom, competitiveness and participation in eighteen Latin American countries. Democratization, 9, 85–100.
4.
AlvarezR. M. (2009). Measuring election performance (Working Paper no. 90). Pasadena, CA: Caltech-MIT Voting Technology Project.
5.
AlvarezR. M.AnsolabehereS.StewartC. (2005). Studying elections: Data quality and pitfalls in measuring the effects of voting technologies. Policy Studies Journal, 33, 15–24.
6.
AlvarezR. M.KatzG.PomaresJ. (2011). The impact of new technologies on voter confidence in Latin America: Evidence from e-voting experiments in Argentina and Colombia. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 8, 199–217.
7.
AnsariN.SakarindrP.HaghaniE.ZhangC.JainA.ShiY. Q. (2008). Evaluating electronic voting systems equipped with voter-verified paper records. IEEE Security & Privacy, 6, 30–39.
8.
ArcherM. (2003). Structure, agency and the internal conversation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9.
AvgerouC. (2013a). Explaining trust in IT-mediated elections: A case study of e-voting in Brazil. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 14, 420–451.
10.
AvgerouC. (2013b). Social mechanisms for causal explanation in social theory based IS research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 14, 399–419.
11.
BanerjeeM. (2007). Sacred elections. Economic and Political Weekly, 42, 1556–1562.
12.
BanerjeeM. (2014). Why India votes?London, UK: Routledge.
13.
BeethamD.CarvalhoE.LandmanT.WeirS. (2008). Assessing the quality of democracy: A practical guide. Stockholm, Sweden: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.
14.
BirchS. (2011). Electoral malpractice. London, UK: Oxford University Press.
15.
BjornlundE. C. (2004). Beyond free and fair: Monitoring elections and building democracy. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
16.
BlaisA. (2006). What affects voter turnout?Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 111–125.
17.
BrattonM. (2008). Vote buying and violence in Nigerian election campaigns. Electoral Studies, 27, 621–632.
18.
CaroR. A. (1990). Means of ascent: The years of Lyndon Johnson. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
19.
ChaturvediR. (2011). ‘Somehow it happened’: Violence, culpability, and the Hindu Nationalist community. Cultural Anthropology, 26, 340–362.
20.
CongeP. J. (1988). The concept of political participation: Toward a definition. Comparative Politics, 20, 241–249.
21.
CorbridgeS.HarrissJ. (2000). Reinventing India: Liberalization, Hindu nationalism and popular democracy. London, UK: John Wiley.
22.
CorbridgeS.SrivastavaM.WilliamsG.VeronR. (2005). Seeing the state: Governance and governmentality in India. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
23.
DebnathS.KapoorM.RaviS. (2016). The impact of electronic voting machines on electoral frauds, democracy, and development. Hyderabad: Indian School of Business.
24.
DerconS.Gutierrez-RomeroR. (2012). Triggers and characteristics of the 2007 Kenyan electoral violence. World Development, 40, 731–744.
25.
DiwakarR. (2008). Voter turnout in the Indian states: An empirical analysis. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 18, 75–100.
26.
DobsonP. J. (2001). Longitudinal case research: A critical realist perspective. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 14, 283–296.
27.
DourishP. (2004). What we talk about when we talk about context. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 8, 19–30.
28.
DrèzeJ.KheraR. (2017). Recent social security initiatives in India. World Development, 98, 555–572.
29.
EastonG. (2010). Critical realism in case study research. Industrial Marketing Management, 39, 118–128.
30.
ElklitJ.ReynoldsA. (2005). A framework for the systematic study of election quality. Democratization, 12, 147–162.
31.
EsteveJ. B.GoldsmithB.TurnerJ. (2012). International experience with e-voting. Washington, DC: International Foundation for Electoral Systems.
32.
EvansP. B. (1986). State, capital, and the transformation of dependence: The Brazilian computer case. World Development, 14, 791–808.
33.
EvansP. B. (1992). Indian informatics in the 1980s: The changing character of state involvement. World Development, 20, 1–18.
34.
EvansP. B.FrischtakC. R.TigreP. B. (1992). High technology and third world industrialization: Brazilian computer policy in comparative perspective. Berkeley: University of California.
35.
EverettS. P.GreeneK.ByrneM. D.WallachD. S.DerrK.SandlerD.TorousT. (2008, April). Electronic voting machines versus traditional methods: Improved preference, similar performance. In: EverettS. P., et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 883–892). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
36.
FalletiT. G.LynchJ. F. (2009). Context and causal mechanisms in political analysis. Comparative Political Studies, 42, 1143–1166.
FrankR. W.MartíneziComaF. (2017). How election dynamics shape perceptions of electoral integrity. Electoral Studies, 48, 153–165.
39.
FujiwaraT. (2015). Voting technology, political responsiveness, and infant health: Evidence from Brazil. Econometrica, 83, 423–464.
40.
GandhiG. (2014). Forward. In: QuraishiS. Y. (Ed.), An undocumented wonder: The making of the Great Indian election (pp. i–xv). New Delhi, India: Rupa Publications.
41.
GanzJ.BishopM.PeisertS. (2016). Security analysis of scantegrity, an electronic voting system: eScholarship. Berkeley: University of California.
42.
GonggrijpR.HengeveldW. J. (2007). Studying the Nedap/Groenendaal ES3B voting computer: A computer security perspective. In: GonggrijpR.HengeveldW. J. (Eds.), 2007 USENIX/ACCUIRATE electronic voting technology workshop (p. 16). Berkeley, CA: USENIX Association.
43.
Government of India. (2015). ‘Wiping every tear from every eye’: The JAM number trinity solution. In: Ministry of Finance (Ed.), Economic survey 2014–2015 (pp. 1–444). New Delhi: Author.
44.
GritzalisA. (2002). Principles and requirements for a secure e-voting system. Computers & Security, 21, 539–556.
45.
HaldermanJ. A.TeagueV. (2015). The New South Wales ivote system: Security failures and verification flaws in a live online election. In: HaldermanJ. A.TeagueV. (Eds.), International conference on e-voting and identity (pp. 35–53). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
46.
HeeksR.ArunS. (2010). Social outsourcing as a development tool: The impact of outsourcing IT services to women’s social enterprises in Kerala. Journal of International Development, 22, 441–454.
47.
HellerP. (1996). Social capital as a product of class mobilization and state intervention: Industrial workers in Kerala, India. World Development, 24, 1055–1071.
48.
HerstattM.HerstattC. (2017). India’s Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs): Social construction of a controversy surrounding a frugal innovation. In: HerstattC.TiwariR. (Eds.), Lead market India (pp. 195–212). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
49.
HidalgoF. D. (2010). Digital democracy: The consequences of electronic voting technology in Brazil. University Park: Pennsylvania State University.
50.
HoseinG.WhitleyE. A. (2010). Global challenges for identity policies. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
51.
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. (2011, December). Introducing electronic voting: Essential considerations (Policy Paper). Stockholm, Sweden: Author.
International Foundation for Electoral Systems. (2013). Implementing and overseeing electronic voting and counting technologies. Washington, DC: Author.
54.
JensenP. S.JustesenM. K. (2014). Poverty and vote buying: Survey-based evidence from Africa. Electoral Studies, 33, 220–232.
55.
KallinikosJ. (2012). Form, function, and matter: Crossing the border of materiality. In: LeonardiP. M.NardiB. A.KallinikosJ. (Eds.), Materiality and organizing (pp. 67–87). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
LeeA. S.BaskervilleR. L. (2003). Generalizing generalizability in information systems research. Information Systems Research, 14, 221–243.
58.
LeidnerD. E.KayworthT. (2006). A review of culture in information systems research: Toward a theory of information technology culture. MIS Quarterly, 30, 357–399.
59.
LeonardiP. M.NardiB. A.KallinikosJ. (2012). Materiality and organizing. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
60.
LoeberL. (2008). E-voting in the Netherlands; from general acceptance to general doubt in two years. Electronic Voting, 131, 21–30.
61.
LuhmannN. (2000). Familiarity, confidence, trust: Problems and alternatives. In: GambettaD. (Ed.), Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations (pp. 94–107). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
62.
MadonS. (2005). Governance lessons from the experience of telecentres in Kerala. European Journal of Information Systems, 14, 401–416.
63.
MallickR. (2007). Development policy of a communist government: West Bengal since 1977. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
64.
MarkusM. L. (1983). Power, politics and MIS implementation. Communications of the ACM, 26, 430–445.
65.
MarkusM. L.RobeyD. (1988). Information technology and organizational change: Causal structure in theory and research. Management Science, 34, 583–598.
66.
MasieroS. (2015). Redesigning the Indian food security system through e-governance: The case of Kerala. World Development, 67, 126–137.
67.
McCormackC. (2016). Democracy rebooted: The future of technology in elections. Washington, DC: Atlantic Council.
68.
McGrathK. (2016). Identity verification and societal challenges: Explaining the gap between service provision and development outcomes. MIS Quarterly, 40, 485–500.
MingersJ.MutchA.WillcocksL. (2013). Critical realism in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 37, 795–802.
71.
MooijJ. (1999). Food policy in India: The importance of electoral politics in policy implementation. Journal of International Development, 11, 625–636.
72.
MoynihanD. P. (2004). Building secure elections: E-voting, security, and systems theory. Public Administration Review, 64, 515–528.
73.
MutchA. (2010). Technology, organization, and structure – A morphogenetic approach. Organization Science, 21, 507–520.
74.
NardiB. A. (1996). Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition. In: NardiB. A. (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 69–102). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
75.
NewtonK.NorrisP. (1999). Confidence in public institutions. In: PharrS.PutnamR. (Eds.), Disaffected democracies: What’s troubling the trilateral countries? (pp. 52–73). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
76.
NjihiaJ. M.MeraliY. (2013). The broader context for ICT4D projects: A morphogenetic analysis. MIS Quarterly, 37, 881–905.
77.
NorrisP. (2013). The new research agenda studying electoral integrity. Electoral Studies, 32, 563–575.
78.
NorrisP. (2014). Why electoral integrity matters. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
79.
O’NeillO. (2002). A question of trust. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
80.
OostveenA. M. (2010). Outsourcing democracy: Losing control of e-voting in the Netherlands. Policy & Internet, 2, 201–220.
81.
OostveenA.-M.van den BesselaarP. (2004). Security as belief: Users perceptions on the security of electronic voting systems. In: ProsserA.KrimmerR. (Eds.), Electronic voting in Europe: Technology, law, politics and society (pp. 73–82). Bonn, Germany: Gesellschaft fur Informatik.
82.
OostveenA. -M.van den BesselaarP. (2005). Trust, identity, and the effects of voting technologies on voting behavior. Social Science Computer Review, 23, 304–311.
83.
OrlikowskiW. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28, 1435–1448.
84.
PastorR. A. (1999). The role of electoral administration in democratic transitions: Implications for policy and research. Democratization, 6(4), 1–27.
85.
PiccolinoG. (2015). Making democracy legible? Voter registration and the permanent electronic electoral list in Benin. Development and Change, 46, 269–292.
86.
PiccolinoG. (2016). Infrastructural state capacity for democratization? Voter registration and identification in Cote d’Ivoire and Ghana compared. Democratization, 23, 496–519.
87.
PietersW. (2006). Acceptance of voting technology: Between confidence and trust. In: StølenK., et al (Eds.), iTrust 2006 (pp. 283–297). Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.
88.
QuraishiS. Y. (2014). An undocumented wonder: The making of the Great Indian election. New Delhi, India: Rupa Publications.
89.
RaoG. N. (2010). Democracy at risk! Can we trust our electronic voting machines?New Delhi, India: Citizens for Verifiability, Transparency & Accountability in Elections.
90.
SancesM.StewartC.CharlesH. (2014, June). Partisanship and voter confidence, 2000–2012 (Working Paper no. 125). Pasadena, CA: Caltech–MIT Voting Technology Project.
91.
SchmitterP.KarlT. L. (1991). What democracy is . . . and is not. Journal of Democracy, 2, 75–88.
92.
SelkerT.GolerG. (2004, April). Security vulnerabilities and problems with VVPT (Working Paper no. 16). Pasadena, CA: Caltech–MIT Voting Technology Project.
93.
ShahandashtiS.FengH. (2016). DRE-ip: A verifiable e-voting scheme without tallying authorities. In: AskoxylakisI.IoannidesS.KatsikasS. M. (Eds.), Lecture notes in computer science: Computer security – ESORICS 2016 (pp. 223–240). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
94.
SinharayP. (2014). West Bengal’s election story: The caste question. Economic and Political Weekly, 49(17), 10–12.
95.
SmithL. (2009). Explaining violence after recent elections in Ethiopia and Kenya. Democratization, 16, 867–897.
96.
SmithM. L. (2006). Overcoming theory-practice inconsistencies: Critical realism and information systems research. Information and Organization, 16, 191–211.
97.
SmithR. (2016). Confidence in paper-based and electronic voting channels: Evidence from Australia. Australian Journal of Political Science, 51, 68–85.
98.
StewartC. (2004, November). The reliability of electronic voting machines in Georgia (Working Paper no. 16). Pasadena, CA: Caltech–MIT Voting Technology Project.
99.
StewartC. (2017, February). Electoral vulnerabilities in the United States: Past, present, and future (Working Paper no. 131). Pasadena, CA: Caltech–MIT Voting Technology Project.
100.
TonkissF. (2009). Trust, confidence and economic crisis. Intereconomics, 44, 196–202.
101.
VaishnavM. (2017). When crime pays: Money and muscle in Indian politics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
102.
van den BessalaarP.BeckersD. (2005). The life and death of the great Amsterdam Digital City. In: van den BessalaarP.KoizumiS. (Eds.), Digital cities 2003: Information technologies for social capital: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 66–96). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
103.
VermaA. (2005). Policing elections in India. India Review, 4, 354–376.
104.
VermaA. (2009). Situational prevention and elections in India. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 4, 83–97.
105.
VéronR. (2001). The ‘new’ Kerala model: Lessons for sustainable development. World Development, 29, 601–617.
106.
VolkamerM. (2009). Requirements for electronic voting machines. In: VolkamerM. (Ed.), Lecture notes in business information processing: Evaluation of electronic voting (pp. 73–91). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
107.
VolkoffO.StrongD. M.ElmesM. B. (2007). Technological embeddedness and organizational change. Organization Science, 18, 832–848.
108.
WeickK. E. (1988). Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations. Journal of Management Studies, 25, 305–317.
109.
WhitleyE. A.HoseinI. R.AngellI. O.DaviesS. (2007). Reflections on the academic policy analysis process and the UK identity cards scheme. Information Society, 23, 51–58.
110.
WolchokS.WustrowE.HaldermanJ. A.PrasadH. K.KankipatiA.SakhamuriS. K.. . . GonggrijpR. (2010, April). Security analysis of India’s electronic voting machines. In: WolchokS., et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on computer and communications security 2010 (pp. 1–14). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
111.
WynnD.WilliamsC. K. (2012). Principles for conducting critical realist case study research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 36, 787–810.
112.
XenakisA.MacintoshA. (2005, May). E-electoral administration: organizational lessons learned from the deployment of e-voting in the UK. In: DelcambreL. M. L.GiulianoG. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2005 national conference on digital government research (pp. 191–197). Atlanta, GA: Association for Computing Machinery.
113.
ZachariadisM.ScottS.BarrettM. (2013). Methodological Implications of critical realism for mixed-methods research. MIS Quarterly, 37, 855–879.
114.
ZuccoC.NicolauJ. M. (2016). Trading old errors for new errors? The impact of electronic voting technology on party label votes in Brazil. Electoral Studies, 43, 10–20.
