Forum for Science, Industry and Business

Sponsored by:     3M 
Search our Site:

 

Touch Screen Voting a Hit; Critics Miss Mark on Security

25.01.2008
Electronic voting technology, especially touch screen systems, easily pass the tests of voter confidence and satisfaction, but users still make too many mistakes and ask too often for help, says a major new study led by the University of Maryland and conducted with the University of Rochester and the University of Michigan.

The study finds that these usability concerns cannot be addressed by adding paper trails to e-voting systems, and concludes that most critics have focused on the wrong issues.

"Recent history is clear: the election problem most likely to tilt a close race is not security, but the inability of voters to cast their ballots the way they intended," says Paul Herrnson, principal investigator and a University of Maryland political scientist who directs the school's Center for American Politics and Citizenship. "The hazards of poor ballot design didn't end with Florida's hanging, pregnant and dimpled chads in 2000. But tremendous improvement in voters' abilities to cast their votes accurately and without assistance can be accomplished simply by improving the way ballots are laid out on touch screen and paper-based systems."

The five-year study is the most comprehensive of its kind, focusing exclusively on usability issues and relying on data from field tests with more than 1,500 subjects, laboratory tests and expert reviews. The results and recommendations are reported in the new book, Voting Technology: The Not-So-Simple Act of Casting a Ballot, published by the Brookings Press.

Summary of Findings and Recommendations

Voter Errors: The report describes the findings as both reassuring and sobering. While voters expressed confidence in the systems, all proved vulnerable to various types of voter error, such as unintentionally failing to cast a vote in some races, or worse, actually voting for the wrong candidate.

Recommendations: The study recommends a series of needed improvements to make e-voting more user-friendly, adding that that manufacturers and election officials can readily implement these steps. Also, it calls for educational campaigns to ensure voters and poll workers know what they're doing.

"One of the things we've learned in this study is that training may be even more important than which voting system is used," says Richard Niemi, a report co-author and University of Rochester political scientist. "People don't automatically know how to vote on these or any unfamiliar machines. We saw this with incorrectly marked paper ballots, problems with straight-party voting and the number of subjects that needed assistance."

Voter Satisfaction and Confidence: All six electronic voting systems tested were judged favorably, though subjects identified strengths and weaknesses in each system. Voters responded positively to displays with a high degree of computerization, and prefer systems that give them greater navigation control. Also, voters expressed the most confidence in the paperless touch screen systems to accurately record their votes.

"Most touch screen systems were found to be easy to use, support large and clear type, and the ability to readily change a vote," says Benjamin Bederson, a report co-author and computer scientist at the University of Maryland Institute for Advanced Computer Studies. "This added up to an overall positive response by voters. But there are still glitches, and these must be fixed."

Voter Verification Systems: In separate tests of voter verification systems, the report concludes that these devices "appear to produce modest improvements in voter accuracy," though little additional voter confidence, and warns that adding paper trails to Diebold and some other electronic systems may be more problematic than helpful, in part because of their printers' tendency to jam and break down.

Switching to Paper: Policy makers considering a switch to paper ballot/optical scan voting systems should consider special security problems connected with paper. "The history of the paper ballot in the United States is checkered with ballot theft and ballot box stuffing," the report says. Tampering with touch screen systems requires greater technical skill.

Specific Accuracy Findings

The study found an overall voter accuracy rate of 97 percent. "A three percent error rate sounds good until you consider that in the 2000 presidential race the percentage of uncounted ballots was only two percent," Herrnson says. "Voters did pretty well with these new machines - probably better than they would with older technology - but it's still enough to affect the outcome of a close election."

The accuracy rate dropped to the 80 to 90 percent range as the task got more complicated, such as voting for more than a single candidate in a race, voting a straight-party ticket or making corrections before casting the ballot.

"The most common type of error made by voters was registering a vote for the wrong candidate," says Michael Hanmer, a co-author and assistant professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland and a research fellow at the Center for American Politics and Citizenship. "This is the worst kind of error because not only does a voter's preferred candidate lose a vote, but it may go to the main opponent."

Frederick Conrad, a co-author and associate research professor in the Joint Program in Survey Methodology at the University of Maryland and the Institute for Social Research at Michigan, adds: "We observed that voters can get quite lost in the voting process, and when they do, the chances are greater they will not recover, ultimately voting for no one or a candidate other than they intended."

Assistance and Voter Inequality Findings

Gender: "Women may be more likely to ask for help, but voting error rates suggest that it is men who really need it," the report says.
Certain types of voters need more help in using the machines: those with little computer experience, senior citizens, lower income and African American voters.

Voter Verification System Findings

There was no significant difference in the performance of the four verification systems tested.
Paper records received greater approval ratings than the other systems tested.
The systems tested were all prototypes under development and newer versions may prove superior.

The report concludes that voter verification systems represent a trade-off and are unlikely to meet the expectations of their advocates. While they offer some hedge against massive fraud, they will add complexity and delays as well. Also, these systems could lead to higher levels of inaccurate votes, to the extent that users have technical difficulty changing their votes.

Recommendations for Election Officials and Policymakers

Voting systems should be purchased only after election officials have tested their usability, preferably in comparison to other systems under consideration. Small field studies with only a few dozen voters may be sufficient.
Program ballots should be as simple and straightforward as possible.
Review use of straight-party devices, as they are not well understood by voters.
Allocate poll workers to reflect the number of citizens expected to vote in each polling place and with regard to the number of voters likely to be more challenged, such as precincts with a large number of senior citizens.

Offer voters training to ease the transition to new systems or ballots through the mass media and mail, as well as hands-on demonstrations at shopping malls, county fairs, and other public venues.

Recommendations and Guidelines for Manufacturers

"First and foremost, voting system designers and manufacturers should emphasize usability engineering in the development of their products," the report says.
Systems should not provide too much information at once. The "full-faced" system showing the entire ballot in a single display overwhelmed voters.
Voters need clear feedback on where they are in the voting process.
Special care should be taken to make it clear when voting is complete.
Review screens should display full information on a single screen, if possible, including races that the voter has skipped.

Machines Tested

The researchers conducted expert reviews, laboratory tests and field studies comparing five current electronic voting systems and one prototype: 1) paper ballot/optical scan (Election Systems and Software); 2) manual advance touch screen (Diebold AccuVote-TS); 3) auto advance touch screen with paper trail (Avante Voting Systems); 4) zoomable touch screen (research proto-type, designed by Benjamin Bederson, UM); 5) dial and buttons (Hart InterCivic); 6) full-face ballot with membrane buttons (Nedap Election Systems). The companies and developers provided the machines for these tests.

Subsequently the researchers compared four vote verification/election audit systems: the Diebold AccuVote-TSx with AccuView Printer Module; VoteHere Sentinel; the Scytl Pnyx, VM; the MIT Audio System. The Diebold AccuVote-TS had no verification system and served as the statistical control.

Funders

Funding for the studies was provided by the National Science Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Maryland State Board of Elections.

Research Team

Paul Herrnson, principal investigator, University of Maryland Center for American Politics and Citizenship;
Richard Niemi, University of Rochester, dept. of political science;
Michael Hanmer, University of Maryland dept. of government and politics and Center for American Politics and Citizenship;
Benjamin Bederson, University of Maryland Human-Computer Interaction Lab, Institute for Advanced Computer Studies;
Frederick Conrad, University of Maryland, Joint Program in Survey Methodology, University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research;

Michael Traugott, University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.

Neil Tickner | EurekAlert!
Further information:
http://www.umd.edu

More articles from Studies and Analyses:

nachricht Win-win strategies for climate and food security
02.10.2017 | International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)

nachricht The personality factor: How to foster the sharing of research data
06.09.2017 | ZBW – Leibniz-Informationszentrum Wirtschaft

All articles from Studies and Analyses >>>

The most recent press releases about innovation >>>

Die letzten 5 Focus-News des innovations-reports im Überblick:

Im Focus: Neutron star merger directly observed for the first time

University of Maryland researchers contribute to historic detection of gravitational waves and light created by event

On August 17, 2017, at 12:41:04 UTC, scientists made the first direct observation of a merger between two neutron stars--the dense, collapsed cores that remain...

Im Focus: Breaking: the first light from two neutron stars merging

Seven new papers describe the first-ever detection of light from a gravitational wave source. The event, caused by two neutron stars colliding and merging together, was dubbed GW170817 because it sent ripples through space-time that reached Earth on 2017 August 17. Around the world, hundreds of excited astronomers mobilized quickly and were able to observe the event using numerous telescopes, providing a wealth of new data.

Previous detections of gravitational waves have all involved the merger of two black holes, a feat that won the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics earlier this month....

Im Focus: Smart sensors for efficient processes

Material defects in end products can quickly result in failures in many areas of industry, and have a massive impact on the safe use of their products. This is why, in the field of quality assurance, intelligent, nondestructive sensor systems play a key role. They allow testing components and parts in a rapid and cost-efficient manner without destroying the actual product or changing its surface. Experts from the Fraunhofer IZFP in Saarbrücken will be presenting two exhibits at the Blechexpo in Stuttgart from 7–10 November 2017 that allow fast, reliable, and automated characterization of materials and detection of defects (Hall 5, Booth 5306).

When quality testing uses time-consuming destructive test methods, it can result in enormous costs due to damaging or destroying the products. And given that...

Im Focus: Cold molecules on collision course

Using a new cooling technique MPQ scientists succeed at observing collisions in a dense beam of cold and slow dipolar molecules.

How do chemical reactions proceed at extremely low temperatures? The answer requires the investigation of molecular samples that are cold, dense, and slow at...

Im Focus: Shrinking the proton again!

Scientists from the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics, using high precision laser spectroscopy of atomic hydrogen, confirm the surprisingly small value of the proton radius determined from muonic hydrogen.

It was one of the breakthroughs of the year 2010: Laser spectroscopy of muonic hydrogen resulted in a value for the proton charge radius that was significantly...

All Focus news of the innovation-report >>>

Anzeige

Anzeige

Event News

ASEAN Member States discuss the future role of renewable energy

17.10.2017 | Event News

World Health Summit 2017: International experts set the course for the future of Global Health

10.10.2017 | Event News

Climate Engineering Conference 2017 Opens in Berlin

10.10.2017 | Event News

 
Latest News

Terahertz spectroscopy goes nano

20.10.2017 | Information Technology

Strange but true: Turning a material upside down can sometimes make it softer

20.10.2017 | Materials Sciences

NRL clarifies valley polarization for electronic and optoelectronic technologies

20.10.2017 | Interdisciplinary Research

VideoLinks
B2B-VideoLinks
More VideoLinks >>>