Online versus offline: Exploring the link between how candidates campaign and how voters cast their ballot

Abstract

The Internet is playing an increasingly important role in shaping citizens' political experience. We turn to it to consume political news and, in some countries, to even cast our ballots at parliamentary elections. Leading the way in embracing Internet voting (i-voting) is Estonia where nearly half of the ballots cast during the 2019 parliamentary election were submitted online. Using original data from the 2019 Estonian Candidate Study, this paper explores the relationship between how candidates campaign and their electoral performance. It finds greater use of both offline and online campaign tools to contribute to higher vote shares as candidates win more traditional and i-votes. These positive effects are similar in size, in terms of candidates' overall electoral performance as well as their ability to attract different types of votes. The results show not only that individual-level campaigns continue to matter, but that online campaigns have become as important as offline campaigns for candidates, and voters' political activity often transcends the medium through which they receive political communication.

Who’s in charge? The impact of delivery and perception of risk on the willingness to voting online

“…Notwithstanding, it does appear that many i-voters are ‘faithful’: once they start using the method, they stick with it (Alvarez et al, 2009: 502; Germann and Serdült, 2014). Indeed, as Trumm (2021) shows, so embedded is the idea of casting ballots online in Estonia, that both online and offline voters respond equally positively to online and offline campaigning. The implication here is that online voting is not solely the preserve of those who are mobilised by online campaigning (Trumm, 2021: 14).…”

“…Indeed, as Trumm (2021) shows, so embedded is the idea of casting ballots online in Estonia, that both online and offline voters respond equally positively to online and offline campaigning. The implication here is that online voting is not solely the preserve of those who are mobilised by online campaigning (Trumm, 2021: 14). But faithfulness is contingent on the experience of i-voting .…”

“…And, i-voting may also be especially effective in encouraging participation of socially excluded groups, those with mobility impairment, and the young, many of whom have grown-up with digital applications in many aspects of their lives (Alvarez et al, 2009: 497; Vassil et al, 2016). Several countries have trialled forms of i-voting – for example, Armenia, Austria, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Estonia, France, India, Mexico, the Netherlands, Panama, Norway, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States (Alvarez et al, 2013; Germann and Serdült, 2014, 2017; Goodman, 2010; Goodman and Stokes, 2018; Mellon et al, 2017; Trumm, 2021). Relatively few, however, have adopted i-voting on any scale and voters overall continue to display some reluctance to adopt the approach.…”

A longitudinal study of online campaigning in the most digitally advanced society in the world

“…Sudulich and Wall (2010) find more extensive online campaigning to bring about electoral benefits in Ireland, Gibson and McAllister (2006, 2011, 2015 find similar trends in Australia, and Koc-Michalska et al (2016) confirm these findings at European Parliament elections both in 2009 and 2014. A recent paper by Trumm (2021) shows that online and offline campaigns have roughly equal and positive effects on candidates' vote share at the 2019 parliamentary election in Estonia.…”

“…Our study does not extend to candidates' electoral success. For insights into the relationship between digital campaigning and electoral performance, see, for example,Koc-Michalska et al (2016),Wall (2010) andTrumm (2021). 2 https://www.wired.co.uk/article/digital-estonia.…”