Examining voters' intention to use internet voting system: a case of Ghana

Abstract

This study seeks to examine and understand factors that influence internet voting (i-voting) adoption intention from young voters' perspective, using unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) and the trust as a framework. Using a quantitative research method, the researcher collected data from 274 university students in Ghana, using closed-ended questions, and the data was analysed using the partial least square with SmartPLS 3. The results of the findings indicates that accuracy (β = 0.251, p = 0.001), performance expectancy (β = 0.406, p = 0.000), and effort expectancy (β = 0.136, p = 0.008) have a significant positive effect on behavioural intention to use i-voting system. Facilitating condition was also find to have significant effect on trust in EC (β = 0.237, p = 0.001). But social influence (β = -0.074, p = 0.207), facilitating condition (β = -0.004, p = 0.936), trust in EC (β = -0.018, p = 0.368) and confidentiality (β = 0.066, p = 0.293), were found not to have any significant effect on users behavioural intention to use i-voting system.

Examining the Impacts of Technology and Trust on I-Voting Acceptance in the COVID-19 Aftermath

“…Research shows that the intensity of the impact of TVS and TiVT on IUIV is not balanced. Although the impact of TiVT on IUIV has been clearly demonstrated (Ali & Al Mubarak, 2018;Carter & Campbell, 2011;Nemeslaki et al, 2016), quite a few studies have refuted the impact of TVS on IUIV (Agbesi, 2020;Nemeslaki et al, 2016;Powell et al, 2012;Warkentin et al, 2018). Our study supports the former (TiVT-> IUIV) but does not agree with the latter results.…”

“…Also of importance is the research finding of Solvak and Vassil (2018) that citizens remain loyal to the new voting method due to a positive experience, ensuring at least that existing turnout levels are maintained. Second, research shows the social influence of environment on intention to use i-voting, meaning that existing i-voters attract others by example, leading to an increase in participation (Agbesi, 2020;Fuster & Grandón, 2021;Powell et al, 2012). Third, the cost-effectiveness of i-voting was also demonstrated by Krimmer et al (2021) using a case study in Estonia.…”

“…The aforementioned aspects of trust in the i-voting environment have been addressed in several studies (Agbesi, 2020;Baudier et al, 2021;Licht et al, 2021;Mensah, 2020;Powell et al, 2012;Warkentin et al, 2018). Therefore, as suggested by Schaupp and Carter (2005), trust in i-voting is considered collectively in this paper by combining both aspects of trust described earlier, i.e., trust in technology and trust in the government, voting system, and election administration.…”

“…To define the conceptual model of i-voting intention, the building blocks of trust in government and trust in technology, known from existing research of i-voting acceptance research (Agbesi, 2020;Alomari, 2016;Li, 2021;Powell et al, 2012), were used. Consistent with the research context, we specify them as variables of trust in the election provider and its ability to conduct free and fair elections (Table 1).…”

“…(2) Trust in government: In the context of public services, trust in government refers to the perception of the government's capabilities and integrity as a service provider (Bélanger & Carter, 2008), which is part of the broader notion of political trust and concerns the degree to which citizens trust the government and its broadest political environment (the legislature, political leadership, and public institutions) (Mensah & Adams, 2020). Thus, in the context of i-voting, research mostly defines trust in government as trust in the electoral system and institutions directly related to election administration (Agbesi, 2020;Ali & Al Mubarak, 2018;Bélanger & Carter, 2008;Mensah, 2020), which addresses their electoral integrity in terms of ensuring free and fair elections (Norris, 2013).…”