skip to main content
10.1145/642611.642638acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Electronic voting system usability issues

Published:05 April 2003Publication History

ABSTRACT

With recent troubles in U.S. elections, there has been a nationwide push to update voting systems. Municipalities are investing heavily in electronic voting systems, many of which use a touch screen. These systems offer the promise of faster and more accurate voting, but the current reality is that they are fraught with usability and systemic problems. This paper surveys issues relating to usability of electronic voting systems and reports on a series of studies, including one with 415 voters using new systems that the State of Maryland purchased. Our analysis shows these systems work well, but have several problems, and many voters have concerns about them.

References

  1. Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act. (1994). 42 U.S.C. 1973 et. seq.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Voting System Accessibility Comparison. (2001). Nat'l Organization on Disability, Washington, DC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. National Voter Independence Project www.halftheplanet.com/departments/vote/intro.html {2002}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Allen, P. L. (1906). Ballot Laws and Their Workings. Political Science Quarterly, 1, pp. 38--58.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Bain, H. M., & Hecock, D. S. (1957). Ballot Position and Voters Choice. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Beard, C. A. (1909). The Ballot's Burden. Political Science Quarterly, 24, pp. 589--614.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Bullock, C. S. I., & Dunn, R. E. (1996). Election Roll-Off: A Test of Three Explanations. Urban Affairs Review, 32, pp. 71--86.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project. Residual Votes Attributable to Technology: An Assessment of the Reliability of Existing Voting Equipment (2001). http://www.vote.caltech.edu/Reports/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Darcy, R., & McAllister, I. (1990). Ballot Position Effects. Electoral Studies, 9(1), pp. 5--17.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Darcy, R., & Schneider, A. (1989). Confusing Ballots, Roll-Off, and the Black Vote. Western Political Quarterly, 42, pp. 347--364.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Election Data Services Inc. 1998 Voting Equipment Study Report (1998). http://electiondataservices.com /content/vote_equip.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Federal Election Commission. The administrative structure of state election offices: voting systems (2000). http://www.fec.gov/elections.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Key, V. O. Jr. (1956). American State Politics. New York: Knopf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Kimball, D. C., Owens, C., & McAndrew, K. (2002). Unrecorded Votes in the 2000 Presidential Election. (Report No. Unpublished manuscript). University of Missouri-St. Louis.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Krosnick, J. A., Miller, J. M., & Tichy, M. P. (in press). An Unrecognized Need for Ballot Reform: The Effects of Candidate Name Order on Election Outcomes. New York: Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Kubeck, J. E., Delp, N. D., Haslett, T. K., & McDaniel, M. A. (1996). Does Job-Related Training Performance Decline With Age? Psychology and Aging, 11, pp. 92--107.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Mercuri, R. (2000). Electronic Vote Tabulation Checks & Balances. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennyslvania, Philadelphia, PA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (1998). The Impact of Candidate Name Order on Election Outcomes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, pp. 291--330.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Nichols, S. M. (1998). State Referendum Voting, Ballot Roll-Off and the New Electoral Technology. State and Local Gov't Review, 30, pp. 106--117.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Nichols, S. M., & Strizek, G. A. (1995). Electronic Voting Machines and Ballot Roll-Off. American Politics Quarterly, 23, pp. 300--318.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Riviere, C. N., & Thakor, N. V. (1996). Effects of Age and Disability on Tracking Tasks With a Computer Mouse: Accuracy and Linearity. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 33, pp. 6--16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Robinson, J. A., & Standing, W. H. (1960). Some Correlates of Participation: The Case of Indiana. Journal of Politics, 22, pp. 96--111.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Roth, S. K. (1998). Disenfranchised by Design: Voting Systems and the Election Process. Information Design Journal, 9(1), pp. 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Rusk, J. (1970). The Effect of the Australian Ballot Reform on Split Ticket Voting. American Political Science Review, 64, pp. 1220--1238.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Sinclair, R. C., Mark, M. M., Moore, S. E., Lavis, C. A., & Soldat, A. S. (2000). An Electoral Butterfly Effect. Nature, 408, pp. 665--666.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election (2001). http://www.usccr.gov.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Walker, J. L. (1996). Ballot Forms and Voter Fatigue: An Analysis of the Office Block and Party Column Ballots. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 10, pp. 448--463.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Wand, J. N., Shotts, K. W., Sekhon, J. S., Mebane, W. R., Herron, M. C., & Brady, H. E. (2001). The Butterfly Did It: The Aberrant Vote for Buchanan in Palm Beach County, Florida. American Political Science Review, 95, pp. 793--810.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Electronic voting system usability issues

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            CHI '03: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
            April 2003
            620 pages
            ISBN:1581136307
            DOI:10.1145/642611

            Copyright © 2003 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 5 April 2003

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • Article

            Acceptance Rates

            CHI '03 Paper Acceptance Rate75of468submissions,16%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader