Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Fred Conrad
University of Michigan
Multi-institution, Multi-disciplinary
Project
University of Michigan University of Maryland
Frederick Conrad Paul Herrnson
Emilia Peytcheva Ben Bedersen
Michael Traugott
Implications
Acknowledgements
Wil Dijkstra, Ralph Franklin, Brian Lewis, Esther
Park, Roma Sharma, Dale Vieriegge
National Science Foundation:
Grant IIS-0306698
Survey Research Center
Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan
Partners:
Federal Election Commission (FEC), Maryland State Board of
Elections, National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST)
Vendors:
Diebold, Hart InterCivic, ES&S, NEDAP, Avante
Note: Sequoia declined invitation to participate
Scope and limits of current work
Today’s talk presents a small scale study that was
designed to demonstrate potential challenges and
inform future work
It does not address system accuracy,
affordability, accessibility, durability or ballot
design
The voting systems tested were those available
when the study was conducted; some machines
may have been deployed with different options;
some machines may since have been updated
Voter intent and e-voting
Hanging chads in Florida 2000 came to symbolize
ambiguity about voter intent
Field (n ≈1500 ) and laboratory (n= 42)
Breadth vs. depth
Office Block 21 9
Straight Party 10 2
n = number voters
5
Agreement
1
Diebold ES & S Zoomable Avante NEDAP Hart
Machine
“I felt comfortable using the system”
7
(1= Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree)
5
Agreement
1
Diebold ES & S Zoomable Avante NEDAP Hart
Machine
“Correcting my mistakes was easy”
7
(1= Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree)
5
Agreement
1
Diebold ES & S Zoomable Avante NEDAP Hart
Machine
“Casting a write-in vote was easy to do”
7
(1= Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree)
5
Agreement
1
Diebold ES & S Zoomable Avante NEDAP Hart
Machine
“Changing a vote was easy to do”
7
(1= Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree)
5
Agreement
1
Diebold ES & S Zoomable Avante NEDAP Hart
Machine
Why the differences in satisfaction?
We believe the answer lies in the details of
the interaction
Office Block 21 9
Straight Party 10 2
n = number voters
Coding the Video
Write-in
Number of Actions
10
Getting started Change vote
8
0
s t
es id en nato
r p or e
R e er n Stat . G e
n . ud .
en Re
p is. eri ff ur
t
tic
e
st
's e e
d g udg o ar oar st.
d d 1
t.
2
t.
3
t.
4
iew
c S e A S e m m h Co Jus . Ju . Ju B e es u es u es Rev
Ac res S e U o v o f t
A St
t a t a t e a t o
C n ty
S e f. oc t te
J t . y B u u
P US
G c. St St ty re
m C
Ch Ass ffic roba it D
is ar Q Q Q Q
Se u
un Co Sup Ct. . s L ibr
o t r a P r
C f . C T an b e
ko up p. Tr m
ler te S e Su Me
C a
St Stat
Voting Task
Duration
Voting duration (mins) varied substantially
by machine
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
t r or n . u d en . . f t e s
en to p e
Re e rn Stat . G e ep mis e ri f o ur stic ust' ge ge rd rd .1 .2 t.
3
t.
4
s id e na S v t t e A
e S te R m S h C u J J ud J ud Bo a Boa es t es t es u es
r e S U Go of t
A S t a a t t a o
C nt y e . J c. t . e t. y u u u
P US c. St S ty re
m f o C
Ch Ass ffic roba it D
t is ar Q Q Q Q
Se u br
o un Co Sup Ct. t . r a P ns r Li
C f . C T a be
ko up p. Tr
le r te S e Su M em
C a
St Stat
Voting Task
Number of Actions: Getting Started
2 actions required to access system: Insert access card and press “Next”
Access examples
Hart
Voter is not able to select digits with rotary
wheel, attempts to press (non-touch) screen,
requests help
Help does not help
Voter figures it out
Diebold
Voter slides access card into reader
Presses “Next”
Number of Actions: Vote Change
Diebold requires “de-selecting” current
vote in order to change it
Clicking on already checked check box
Likely to be opaque to non-computer users
Despite manufacturer-provided instructions
Interaction
Casting ballot too soon
Changing votes
Writing-in votes
Navigating between contests
Reviewing votes
Frustration, Increased Cynicism
Abandonment
Lower Turnout in Future
Voters might question results
Variance
Interface-related error is not systematic
all candidates should suffer equally from this
(all else being equal)
E.g. if difficult to change votes, doesn’t matter
which selections require change
Accuracy
Do voters vote for whom they intend?
In lab, compare circled choices to observable
screen actions
In field, compare circled choices to ballot
images and audit trails
Measures (con’t)
Number of Actions
Presses and clicks
Substantive actions, e.g. requests for system
help, revisions of earlier selections
Duration
Per task
Overall