Research Article Published 30 June 2020

The Determinants of Intention to use E-voting System: The Case of Generation X in Malaysia

How to Cite

How to Cite

Yin, K. Y., Chin, K. Y., Meng, C. L., & Pung, N. C. (2020). The Determinants of Intention to use E-voting System: The Case of Generation X in Malaysia. Journal of Business Management and Accounting, 10(1), 47-64. https://doi.org/10.32890/jbma2020.10.1.3
Koay Ying Yin
Faculty of Business and Finance, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Kampar, Perak, Malaysia
Kuah Yoke Chin
Faculty of Business and Finance, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Kampar, Perak, Malaysia
Chan Ling Meng
Faculty of Business and Finance, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Kampar, Perak, Malaysia
Ng Chee Pung
Faculty of Business and Finance, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Kampar, Perak, Malaysia
Full text
PDF View full text 750 KB · 18 pages XML JATS full text 74 KB · machine readable HTML Read online 49 KB
DOI 10.32890/jbma2020.10.1.3 Cite this article
Share this article
Citations
3
OpenAlex, highest of the sources checked
Reads
451
Abstract + full text
Downloads
728 +2
PDF and XML
Percentile
95th
By citations, works of the same year

Article

Abstract

The internet has opened doors for electronic voting (E-voting). A review of the loopholes of the 14th General Election in Malaysia including the delay of votes from overseas voters, the declaration of a public holiday on voting day and the extraordinary heavy traffic, implies that E-voting could be a better alternative to the paper-based ballot voting. Therefore, the objective of this study is to examine the determinants of the intention to use the E-voting system among Generation X in Malaysia. This study focused only on Generation X because most internet users are from this age group (22 to 37-year olds) compared to other age groups. Hence, Generation X may be the focus of E-voting. A survey of 351 respondents on their intention to use E-voting system was conducted throughout 13 states and the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur (Wilayah Persekutuan). Additionally, an empirical model was drawn from adopted theories and data was analyzed using the Partial Least Squares – Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) approach. The findings showed that compatibility, relative advantages and perceived ease of use significantly contributed to the intention to participate in E-voting. However, perceptions of image, complexity of use, perceived usefulness, trust in the internet and in the government are not significantly related to the intention to use E-voting.

Keywords
E-voting government PLS-SEM

Metrics & impact

Citations by source

Harvested 08-09-2026

Counts differ by index because each source crawls a different corpus. Crossref counts only registered reference lists; Google Scholar includes theses, preprints and grey literature.

OpenAlex
3
Open corpus, updated daily View →
Crossref
3
Deposited reference lists only View →
OpenCitations
2
Open references only View →
Scopus
0 Not indexed
Indexed titles only View →
Google Scholar
Publishes no citation count that can be read automatically.
Includes theses and preprints Search →
Dimensions
Publishes no citation count that can be read automatically.
Includes policy documents Search →

Citations over time

New citations recorded in each year, as reported by OpenAlex.

3
0
0
0
0
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Reads & downloads

Abstract views 451
PDF downloads 728
XML downloads 0
Full-text HTML 0
Counted under COUNTER Release 5 rules; known robots excluded.

Attention beyond citation

Citation percentile 95th
Field-weighted citation impact 2.49
Works this article cites 37

From OpenAlex. A field-weighted impact of 1.00 is the world average for work of the same field, type and year. No Altmetric key is configured, so news, policy and social attention are not shown.

Identifiers
DOI · 10.32890/jbma2020.10.1.3
OpenAlex · W3106899119

References

References 37
Deposited to Crossref with the article DOI
  1. Abu-Shanab, E. (2014). Antecedents of trust in e-government services: An empirical test in Jordan. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 8(4), 480-499.
  2. Adeshina, S. A., & Ojo, A. (2014, September). Design imperatives for E-voting as a sociotechnical system. In 2014 11th International Conference on Electronics, Computer and Computation (ICECCO), (pp. 1-4). IEEE.
  3. Alomari, M. K. (2014). Discovering citizen’s reaction toward e-government: factors in e-government adoption. JISTEM-Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management, 11(1), 5-20.
  4. Alomari, M. K. (2016). E-voting adoption in a developing country. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 10(4), 526-547.
  5. Alomari, M., Woods, P., & Sandhu, K. (2012). Predictors for e-government adoption in Jordan: Deployment of an empirical based on a citizen-centric approach. Information Technology & People, 25(2), 207-234.
  6. Alvarez, R. M., Hall, T. E., & Trechsel, A. H. (2009). Internet voting in comparative perspective: the case of Estonia. PS: Political Science & Politics, 42(3), 497-505.
  7. Alzahrani, A., Stahl, B. C., & Prior, M. (2012). Developing an instrument for e-public services’ acceptance using confirmatory factor analysis: Middle East context. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing (JOEUC), 24(3), 18-44.
  8. Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy. Berkeley: University of California Press
  9. Carter, L., & Bélanger, F. (2005). The utilization of e‐government services: citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors. Information systems journal, 15(1), 5-25
  10. Christian Schaupp, L., & Carter, L. (2005). E-voting: From apathy to adoption. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 18(5), 586-601.
  11. Chin, W. W., Gopal, A., & Salisbury, W. D. (1997). Advancing the theory of adaptive structuration: The development of a scale to measure faithfulness of appropriation. Information systems research, 8(4), 342-367.
  12. Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  13. Davis, F.D. (1989). “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology”. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), pp.319-40.
  14. Driscoll, J. W. (1978). Trust and participation in organizational decision making as predictors of satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 21(1), 44-56.
  15. Elewa, A. E., AlSammak, A., AbdElRahman, A., & ElShishtawy, T. (2015). Challenges of electronic voting-a survey. Advances in Computer Science: An International Journal, 4(6), 98-108.
  16. Fakhoury, R., & Aubert, B. (2015). Citizenship, trust, and behavioural intentions to use public e-services: The case of Lebanon. International Journal of Information Management, 35(3), 346-351.
  17. Fitzgerald, J., & Wolak, J. (2016). The roots of trust in local government in western Europe. International Political Science Review, 37(1), 130-146.
  18. Germann, M., & Serdült, U. (2017). Internet voting and turnout: Evidence from Switzerland. Electoral Studies, 47, 1-12.
  19. Gilbert, D., Balestrini, P., & Littleboy, D. (2004). Barriers and benefits in the adoption of E-government. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(4/5), 286.
  20. Gritzalis, D. A. (2002). Principles and requirements for a secure E-voting system. Computers & Security, 21(6), 539-556.
  21. Hair, J. F, Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
  22. Hung, S. Y., Chang, C. M., & Yu, T. J. (2006). Determinants of user acceptance of the e-Government services: The case of online tax filing and payment system. Government Information Quarterly, 23(1), 97-122.
  23. Kim, S., & Lee, J. (2012). E‐participation, transparency, and trust in local government. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 819-828.
  24. Martin, B., Stewart, D., and Hillison, J. (2001) Computer Anxiety Levels of Virginia Extension Personnel. Journal of Extension, 39:1.
  25. Miller, A. H., & Listhaug, O. (1990). Political parties and confidence in government: A comparison of Norway, Sweden and the United States. British Journal of Political Science, 20(3), 357-386.
  26. Powell, A., Williams, C. K., Bock, D. B., Doellman, T., & Allen, J. (2012). E-voting intent: A comparison of young and elderly voters. Government Information Quarterly, 29(3), 361-372.
  27. Rana, N. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Williams, M. D. (2015). A meta-analysis of existing research on citizen adoption of e-government. Information Systems Frontiers, 17(3), 547-563.
  28. Rahman, S. (2018). Was It a Malay Tsunami? Deconstructing the Malay Vote in Malaysia’s 2018 Election. The Round Table, 1-14.
  29. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations: modifications of a model for telecommunications. In Die diffusion von innovationen in der telekommunikation (pp. 25-38). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Saifuddin: E-voting only for PKR elections, no more paper ballots Read more at https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2018/07/07/saifuddin-evoting-only-for-pkr-elections-no-more-paper-ballots/#UJszS821PPoW2s02.99
  30. Schaupp, L.C. & Carter, L. (2005). “E-voting: from apathy to adoption,” The Journal of Enterprise Information Management Science, 18(5), pp.586-601.
  31. Sheranova, A. (2020). Cheating the Machine: E-voting Practices in Kyrgyzstan’s Local Elections. European Review, 1-17.
  32. Singh, S. (2015). EC chief gives E-voting the thumbs down Read more at https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2015/09/25/ec-chief-gives-evoting-the-thumbs-down-abdul-aziz-we-will-stick-to-current-system-by-sarban-singh-sa/#AaQc3d1VPGkjkt1T.99
  33. Song, C., & Lee, J. (2016). Citizens’ use of social media in government, perceived transparency, and trust in government. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(2), 430-453
  34. Tan, C.C., and Tay, C. (2018). Overseas voters race against time to get votes home. http://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/overseas-voters-race-against-time-get-votes-home “Traffic volume higher than usual on highways in Malaysia ahead of election”, 2018. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/breakingnews/30344870
  35. Warkentin, M., Sharma, S., Gefen, D., Rose, G. M., & Pavlou, P. (2018). Social identity and trust in internet-based voting adoption. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2), 195-209.
  36. Zhafry, M., & Kiesha, O. (2017). The economics of public holidays. Staff Insights 2017/9 Bank Negara Malaysia, http://www.bnm.gov.my/index.php?ch=en_ publication&pg=en_papers&ac=43&bb=file
  37. Zucco Jr, C., & Nicolau, J. 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.