Measuring the usability of paper ballots: Efficiency, effectiveness, and satisfaction

Abstract

The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 secured funding for improvements to election administration. Improvements include upgrading older voting systems to meet new guidelines. To determine whether the new voting systems are improvements over existing voting systems, information is needed on the usability of the older, traditional systems. This study was designed as a first step in addressing the need for usability data on existing voting systems. Three traditional paper ballots were empirically evaluated to collect baseline data that can later be compared to newer, electronic voting systems. Usability was evaluated using the thee International Organization for Standardization (ISO) metrics suggested by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST): effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction. All three ballot types (bubble, arrow, and open response) produced reasonable levels of efficiency. The three ballot types did not produce different levels of effectiveness, but the overall error rate was higher than would be expected. On satisfaction, voters were clearly more satisfied with their experience with the bubble ballot.

Post-Election Auditing: Effects of Procedure and Ballot Type on Manual Counting Accuracy, Efficiency, and Auditor Satisfaction and Confidence

“…The optical scan ballots, also on legal sized paper, were identical to those first used by Everett, Byrne, and Greene (2006), and previously used in an auditing context in Goggin et al (2008). Unlike the two VVPAT ballots, in which all the races were contained in a single vertical column, the optical scan ballot places the 27 contests on the ballot in three columns.…”

“…For all three types of ballots, 120 fully completed ballots were prepared, each containing 27 contests, comprised of 21 electoral offices and 6 propositions. All material on the ballots was fictional, yet realistic, and was originally prepared by Everett, Byrne, and Greene (2006). Of these 27 contests on each ballot, only two were counted by each team of auditors.…”

A Simplified Electronic Voting Machine System

“…The operator-control unit controls to allow the voter to vote, to transmit the pulse to automatic control unit and to enable the counting and display units. In this system, a voter can vote simply by pressing a switch which consumes roughly 3-4 seconds where it is very time consuming and clumsy for a voter to collect and to seal a ballot, and to fold it as instructed in the existing traditional systems [1][2][3]. Here, a voter cannot give more than one vote.…”

“…And sometimes, however, many votes become invalid for giving the "seal" in unexpected region. Again, the piracy in voting [1,[3][4][5][6] and lack of transparency in counting [1,[3][4][5][6] are the major shortcomings of the traditional system. This process of counting votes is also very time consuming.…”

“…In the traditional system [1][2][3], the election commission has to print individual ballot-paper for each and every voter. A voter uses "seal and ink" to vote their chosen candidate.…”