Casting votes over the internet : Switzerland and the future of elections
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The Internet has had a profound impact on the way contemporary democracies work. Neither processes, such as electoral campaigns, nor actors, such as candidates, political parties or movements, are immune to the myriad challenges and opportunities offered by new media. The same goes for various fundamental institutions of democracy, such as parliaments and governments, which have adopted Internet-based strategies for both internal and external information and communication needs. Since vertical and horizontal forms of interaction among the elected and electors are increasingly impacted by the Internet, it is hardly surprising that one of the most fundamental acts of democratic life--voting--has been technologically upgraded in numerous countries. [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] Even prior to the deep societal transformations brought upon by the Internet, votes started to be cast electronically on voting machines, were transmitted to central election administrations by technological means such as telephones and fax lines, and were counted automatically. With the advent of the Internet, however, a more fundamental upgrading of the voting process to remote, Internet-based forms of casting the vote became a topic for many a government across the globe. After an initial period of rather naive enthusiasm, characterized by announcements of an imminent introduction of remote Internet voting for all citizens, the complexities of these projects became rapidly visible and, in particular, security concerns brought various projects to a halt. Initial trials in the United States, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and elsewhere were stopped during the first decade of the 20th century. At the same time, successful experiences with remote Internet voting took place in two small European countries: Switzerland and Estonia. In Switzerland, three regional (cantonal) governments (Geneva, Zurich, and Neuchatel) pioneered Internet voting under the auspices of the federal government. In over ten years of experience with Internet voting, ten more cantons have joined the early adopters. In the small Baltic country Estonia, since 2004 a member of the European Union, any citizen equipped with an electronic identification card can cast her vote in local, national, and European elections online since 2005. The continuity characterizing the Swiss and Estonian experiences stands in stark contrast with the failed innovations among the first movers. Today, Internet voting is gaining momentum once more, for instance in Canada and Norway. With this contribution, we aim to track the history, promise, and challenges of Internet voting encountered by one of the two successful pioneers in the field: Switzerland. The Swiss case is of great interest to any student of Internet voting as it is to any policy-maker interested in the prospects, pitfalls, and solutions for avoiding the challenges of Internet voting within their respective contexts. A Brief History of Internet Voting in Switzerland Setting the Stage Switzerland is a federal state comprising of 26 cantons, which have their own parliaments, governments, electoral systems, direct democratic institutions, fiscal resources, and say in most policy areas. The regularity with which Swiss citizens are asked to vote in direct democratic ballots--often four or five times per year--and the simplicity of these votes (yes/no/abstention) made Internet voting a strong candidate for exploration as part of Switzerland's digital agenda. Consequently, the federal government decided in its 1998 Strategy for an Information Society to make use of this potential laboratory for innovation and offered cantonal governments the opportunity to take part in pilot projects aimed at introducing, testing, and evaluating forms of Internet voting. In early 2000 and after the necessary adjustments of the legal framework at the federal level had been made, three cantons--Geneva, Zurich, and Neuchatel--volunteered to become part of these pilot projects and signed contracts with the Federal Chancellery to conduct legally binding tests of Internet voting systems during federal polling. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».