Measuring the Usability of Paper Ballots: Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Satisfaction

Everett, Sarah P.; Byrne, Michael D.; Greene, Kristen

doi:10.1177/154193120605002407

Cited by 29 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 5 publications

(4 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Overvotes in particular are most often attributed to ballot design, voting technologies, and the interaction of these factors with voter attributes (e.g., education, age, and related physical acuity). Here human factors interact with technology and ballot design to produce errors similar to those observed with the use and operation of consumer products Everett, Byrne, and Greene 2006;Laskowski et al 2004;Roth 1998).…”

Section: Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Voting Technology, Election Administration, and Voter Performance

Stein

Vonnahme²,

Byrne³

et al. 2008

Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we study the experience of individual voters on Election Day, November 2006, with two widely used voting technologies, optically scanned paper ballots and electronic voting machines. The focus of our empirical analysis is the relationship between voting technology and several dependent conditions, including voter satisfaction with their voting experience, the time it takes to vote, voter confidence that their ballot will be accurately counted, and self-reported undervotes. We find that a significant portion of the variation between the two voting technologies in voter behavior and affect is a function of election administration. 123 1 Several researchers eschew the term error, preferring to use the aggregate condition of undervotes to characterize the inconsistency between voter intent and the recording of that intent on the ballot. This latter choice is motivated by the view that there are several causes of this condition that are beyond the voter's control. Our use of the term, however, is not intended to suggest that the sole cause of error is the voter. We simply prefer to characterize the inconsistency between voter intent and the recording of that intent as an error (i.e., breakdown) in the electoral process.

show abstract

Section: Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Voting Technology, Election Administration, and Voter Performance

Stein

Vonnahme²,

Byrne³

et al. 2008

Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Problems deciphering ballots are not limited to the senior citizens of Palm Beach, Florida. In one study, researchers examined how different ballot types affected error rates and found that 11% of ballots cast by college undergraduates in an experiment contained at least one error (Everett, Byrne, & Greene, 2006). Furthermore, according to the Government Accountability Office (2014), ballot design can be a key factor in wait times.…”

Section: Ssues Related To Representation Spanmentioning

confidence: 99%

Heuristic-Driven Recommendations for Improving U.S. Voting

Gable¹,

Chen²,

Darling³

et al. 2016

Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applicatio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human factors/ergonomics (HF/E) can play a role in improving equal opportunity in U.S. voting through the redesign of inefficient voting processes that lead to low voter turnout. This article, which derives from the authors’ winning entry in the HFES 2014 “Voting Systems of Tomorrow” competition, outlines HF/E-driven recommendations for improving the American voting process. These recommendations include a “one-stop shop” for all voting-related information, personalized voter accounts, appointment systems, and several ballot design suggestions. Implementation of these recommendations, on any level, has the potential to improve the proficiency of polling places, lower all-too-common lengthy wait times, and ensure that ballots are accessible to all voters.

show abstract

“…Overvotes are most often attributed to ballot design, voting technologies, and the interaction of these factors with voter attributes (e.g., education, age, and related physical acuity). Here, human factors interact with technology and ballot design to produce errors similar to those observed with the use and operation of consumer products Everett, Byrne, and Greene, 2006;Laskowski et al, 2004;Roth, 1998).…”

Section: How We Votementioning

confidence: 99%

When, Where, and How We Vote: Does it Matter?

Stein

Vonnahme

2012

Social Science Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives In this article, we explore the different ways Americans exercise their right to vote on Election Day and how these alternatives shape the voter's experience. Methods Our study draws on data collected from exit polls with Election Day voters in the 2008 Colorado presidential election. Colorado is unique among the 50 states in that it affords it voters the widest array of voting options, both before and on Election Day, and thus provides an ideal setting for testing our hypotheses. Results We find voting places that are more accessible and open (i.e., voters can vote at more than one location on Election Day) significantly enhance voter performance and evaluation. In several instances, this finding is attenuated for infrequent voters. Conclusions There are valuable lessons regarding the centralization and location of polling places that could be applied to precinct voting models. Counties might concentrate more attention on adequately equipping polling locations, particularly having a sufficient number of quality poll workers to assist voters with check‐in and the voting system.

show abstract

Measuring the Usability of Paper Ballots: Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Satisfaction

Cited by 29 publications

References 5 publications

Voting Technology, Election Administration, and Voter Performance

Voting Technology, Election Administration, and Voter Performance

Heuristic-Driven Recommendations for Improving U.S. Voting

When, Where, and How We Vote: Does it Matter?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About