Herrnson, PS (2007) Voting Technology: The Not- So- Simple Act Of Casting A Ballot
The Accuracy Of Electronic Voting Systems
This chapter “The Accuracy of Electronic Voting Systems” is taken from a book by Paul s. Herrnson called Voting Technology: The Not- So- Simple Act Of Casting A Ballot. Any evidence and assumptions made about the voting systems are based around elections across
This article highlights that voter error may have an impact on the choice of candidate in a closely fought election and these errors are mostly related to the type of electronic voting system used alongside the complexity of ballots in some states in
This chapter discusses the accuracy of the different voting systems available. The author does highlight that most electronic voting systems are accurate and mistakes are often minimal and they keep up to date with the voting statistics. Evidence suggests, however, that voters don’t always vote for their intended candidate for various reasons- they push the wrong button, they don’t understand how to use the system nor the layout of the ballot , they don’t realise they can vote for more than one candidate, they want to change their vote and the system automatically moves onto the next part, they vote for the candidate just above or below the intended candidate-proximity error, they move on before choosing an option so don’t cast a vote at all, they don’t write in a candidate’s name properly, they forget to complete the fill- in parts eg In a San Diego mayoral contest, there was an issue about whether to count the large number of ballots where voters failed to fill in an oval, signalling a write-in vote.
It’s impossible to monitor voters’ intentions because of the secret ballot, as they cannot be asked if they voted the way they intended, nor can they be watched during voting.
The author conducted a highly credible, fictitious field/lab study over several weeks during which they observed voters in the booths, acted upon questionnaires they handed out to voters to receive feedback and experienced researchers tried out the voting systems. They also watched while people cast their votes and helped them when necessary to make their intended votes. Types of errors and accuracy levels of different systems/ ballot designs were identified from the results.
The results from the field study showed that an important issue is that the more difficult and complicated voting systems are, the less accurate votes are going to be. The complexity of some types of electronic systems lead to confusion and loss of concentration on the task eg wheels and buttons and navigating to the next place. The study found that methods used on the electronic systems are the source of the difficulties voters experience. It highlighted that failure to fill in the oval beside a write-in vote( only 72% successfully cast a write-in vote in the study) can result in the vote being uncounted. (as in the San Diego mayoral contest)
The author says they acted upon questionnaires they handed out to voters to receive feedback and they relied on the observations from the studies they undertook to gather more information. They also watched while people cast their votes and helped them when necessary.
The study reveals that most voter errors will not affect the outcome of elections as, in the real world, they are decided by large enough vote margins that their outcomes are not affected by voter error but where elections are close eg same- party control of the Senate, a close election can mean the difference between Democrats or Republicans taking control, so voter error may have or, could already have had, major political consequences.
The author suggests that introducing training sessions may be a solution to reducing voter error, so voters will eventually become familiar with the systems. Of course it would be very difficult to ensure error-free voting, but in the case of a close contest, the potential is there for voter error to affect the outcome, which could impact on public policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment