Have you ever heard of using the internet for casting ballots digitally in binding elections? A few countries are using this technology to make elections more convenient. I have been researching them in my recent project. Here, I present some of the recent results we published with my coauthors, Bogdan Romanov and Peter Leets, where we explore the reasons to trust the use of internet voting in Estonia. The country has been the frontrunner in the adoption of internet voting, which has been used since 2005, and is thus a benchmark for other cases.
What makes people actually trust and use internet voting in binding elections? Not what many might expect. Our research finds that people do not adopt internet voting because they believe the technology is secure or advanced. Instead, they use it when they trust the institutions behind it—governments, electoral authorities, and the democratic system as a whole. This conclusion matters for anyone involved in elections, public policy, or digital services: it suggests that improving technology alone will not increase its acceptance. If citizens do not trust the system running the technology, they simply will not trust it.
In recent years, internet voting has often been presented as a technical challenge. The expectation is that if systems can be made secure enough—protected from hacking, transparent in their functioning, and reliable in their outcomes—public trust will follow. Yet the study discussed here offers a more nuanced explanation. It shows that Estonia’s success is not just the result of good engineering, but of something less visible and harder to build: trust in public institutions.
To get a better understanding of this, we approach the issue by distinguishing between two types of trust that shape how people think about internet voting. On the one hand, there is technological trust: the belief that the system itself works as intended, that votes are recorded accurately, and that the process is secure. On the other hand, there is institutional trust: trust in the authorities who design, manage, and oversee the system. This includes trust in governments, electoral commissions, and the legal framework that guarantees fair elections. At first glance, these two forms of trust might seem equally important, even inseparable. After all, why would someone trust a system if they do not trust the people running it? But the study shows that, in practice, they play very different roles. Using survey data from Estonia, we examine people’s attitudes toward internet voting and their actual behavior, that is whether they vote digitally or on paper during elections. This distinction is crucial. It is one thing to say a system seems trustworthy; it is another to rely on it when casting a vote.
The results of our study are striking. Firstly, institutional trust emerges as the strongest factor explaining both confidence in internet voting and its use. People who trust their government and electoral institutions are far more likely to vote online. Secondly, by contrast, technological trust has only a limited influence, especially when it comes to actual behavior. Even if individuals believe that the system is technically sound, this belief alone does not strongly motivate them to use it.
This finding challenges a common assumption about how people interact with complex technologies. It is often imagined that users evaluate systems based on their technical properties—security features, reliability, or design. But in reality, most people are not equipped to assess such details (and we expand on this issue in a different publication). They cannot independently verify whether an internet voting platform is secure or whether its encryption methods are robust. Instead, they rely on a different kind of judgment, one rooted in their broader perception of institutions. In this sense, institutional trust functions as a shortcut. This is why faced with a complex and opaque system, people ask a simpler question: do I trust the people responsible for this? If the answer is yes, they are more willing to accept the technology, even if they do not fully understand it. If the answer is no, technical assurances are unlikely to persuade them. Trust in institutions, then, effectively stands in for trust in technology.
Estonia provides a particularly revealing context for this dynamic. The country is widely recognized for its advanced digital infrastructure and its commitment to e-governance. Citizens can access a wide range of services online, from filing taxes to signing legal documents. Internet voting is just one part of this broader ecosystem. What the study suggests is that the success of internet voting in Estonia is closely tied to this wider environment of trust. People are used to interacting with the state digitally, and they generally believe that these systems are well-managed and fair. At the same time, the research highlights the importance of digital literacy. Individuals who are more comfortable using digital technologies are more likely to vote online. This is not surprising, but it does point to a practical barrier. Even if someone trusts the system, they may hesitate to use it if they feel unsure about navigating the interface or completing the process. In everyday terms, trust makes adoption possible, but familiarity makes it easy.
Interestingly, other factors often associated with technology use turn out to be less significant. Age and education, for example, do not have a strong impact on whether people vote online. This runs against the common assumption that older individuals or those with lower levels of formal education are less likely to engage with digital systems. The findings suggest that trust cuts across these categories. What matters is not so much who people are in demographic terms, but how they perceive the institutions around them. There is, however, one notable difference: women tend to report lower levels of trust in internet voting than men. While we do not fully approach this gap, it indicates that perceptions of digital systems are not uniform and that some groups may have specific concerns that need to be addressed. This has practical implications for how such systems are communicated and implemented.
The broader implications of these findings are significant, particularly for governments considering introducing internet voting. Much of the public debate tends to focus on technical safeguards—how to prevent fraud, ensure anonymity, and protect against cyberattacks. These are, of course, essential issues. But the study reveals that they are only part of the picture.
Without a foundation of institutional trust, even the most secure system may fail to gain public acceptance. This has clear consequences in real-world terms.
Imagine a country with low trust in government attempting to introduce internet voting. Even if the system is objectively secure, citizens may suspect manipulation or unfairness. As a result, they may avoid using it or even question the legitimacy of election results. On the contrary, in a context where institutions are trusted, people may be more willing to adopt new technologies even if they do not fully understand how they work.
The findings resonate also beyond the specific case of voting. As more aspects of public life move online—tax systems, healthcare platforms, digital identities—the same basic dynamic is likely to apply. People will not adopt these systems simply because they are technologically advanced. They will adopt them if they trust the institutions that provide them. This places a premium on transparency, accountability, and consistent performance. In this sense, our work reminds us that technological solutions cannot replace social and political foundations. It is tempting to view innovation as a purely technical process: build better systems, and people will use them. But trust does not emerge from code alone. It is built over time, through institutions that demonstrate reliability and fairness.
For policymakers, this means that investing in technology must go hand in hand with investing in institutional credibility. Clear communication, openness about how systems work, and mechanisms for oversight and accountability are all crucial. Without them, even the most sophisticated tools may remain underused or contested. For citizens, the findings highlight an equally important point. Participation in digital systems is not just a matter of convenience or efficiency; it is also a reflection of broader confidence in the structures that govern society. Choosing to vote online, or not, becomes part of a larger relationship between individuals and the state.
Ultimately, the study shifts the focus of the conversation. The key question is not simply whether internet voting can be made secure, although that remains essential, but whether it can be embedded in a system that people trust. Technology can enable new forms of participation but it cannot, by itself, guarantee legitimacy. What this research shows, in simple words, is that trust is not primarily a technical issue, it is institutional. And when it comes to something as fundamental as voting, that distinction makes all the difference.
___
The research article is available in Government Information Quarterly: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740624X25000620
