Ensuring the integrity of elections is one of the most important elements in maintaining democracy. While it is commonly believed that threats to election integrity are primarily due to security issues, the reality is that voting systems that are not designed to support human perceptual and cognitive limitations also pose a serious and immediate threat. This mismatch between system design and human capabilities can cause tremendous difficulty for voters who are trying to cast a ballot, and has almost certainly altered the outcome of elections in the United States. This article describes the psychological issues that can impact the ability of a voter to cast a vote as intended.
HerrnsonP. S.NiemiR. G.HanmerM. J.BedersonB. B.ConradF. G.TraugottM. W. (2008). (See References). A book describing the difficulties associated with a number of different electronic voting technologies.
2.
JonesD. W. (2003). (See References). A short review of the wide variety of voting technologies that have been employed in elections.
3.
NordenL.KimballD.QuesenberyW.ChenM. (2008). Better ballots. (See References). A survey of ballot design problems and why they occur.
4.
AshA.LampertiJ. (2008). Florida 2006: Can statistics tell us who won congressional district-13?Chance, 21(2), 18–24.
5.
BedersonB. B.LeeB.ShermanR. M.HerrnsonP. S.NiemiR. G. (2003). Electronic voting system usability issues. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 145–152). New York, NY: ACM.
6.
BellS.BenalohJ.ByrneM.DeBeauvoirD.EakinB.FisherG.… WinnM. (2013). STAR-vote: A secure, transparent, auditable, and reliable voting system. Journal of Election Technology and Systems, 1, 18–37.
7.
ByrneM. D.BovairS. (1997). A working memory model of a common procedural error. Cognitive Science, 21, 31–61.
8.
ByrneM. D.GreeneK. K.EverettS. P. (2007). Usability of voting systems: Baseline data for paper, punch cards, and lever machines. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 171–180). New York, NY: ACM.
9.
CampbellB. A.ByrneM. D. (2009). Straight-party voting: What do voters think?IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 4, 718–728.
10.
ChisnellD. (2015). Field Guides for Ensuring Voter Intent (Vols. 1–10). Center for Civic Design. Retrieved from http://civicdesign.org/fieldguides/
EverettS. P. (2007). The usability of electronic voting machines and how votes can be changed without detection (Doctoral dissertation). Rice University, Houston, TX.
13.
FoleyE. B. (2011). The Lake Wobegon recount: Minnesota’s disputed 2008 U.S. Senate Election. Election Law Journal, 10, 129–164.
14.
FrisinaL.HerronM. C.HonakerJ.LewisJ. B. (2008). Ballot formats, touchscreens, and undervotes: A study of the 2006 midterm elections in Florida. Election Law Journal, 7, 25–47.
15.
GreenD. M.SwetsJ. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
16.
GreeneK. K. (2011). Effects of multiple races and header highlighting on undervotes in the 2006 Sarasota General Election: A usability study and cognitive modeling assessment (Doctoral dissertation). Rice University, Houston, TX.
17.
HallT. E.WangT. A. (2008). International principles for election integrity. In Michael AlvarezR.HallT. E.HydeS. D. (Eds.), Election fraud: Detecting and deterring electoral manipulation (pp. 37–49). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
18.
HerrnsonP. S.NiemiR. G.HanmerM. J.BedersonB. B.ConradF. G.TraugottM. W. (2008). Voting technology: The not-so-simple act of casting a ballot. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
19.
HowellW. C.KreidlerD. L. (1963). Information processing under contradictory instruction sets. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 39–46.
KimballD. C.KropfM. (2005). Ballot design and unrecorded votes on paper-based ballots. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69, 508–529.
22.
KutnerM.GreenburgE.JinY.PaulsenC. (2006). The health literacy of America’s adults: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NCES 2006-483). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
23.
LaskowskiS. J.AutryM.CuginiJ.KillamW.YenJ. (2004). Improving the usability and accessibility of voting systems and products (NIST Special Publication 500–256). Washington, DC: National Institute of Standards and Technology.
24.
LaskowskiS. J.RedishJ. (2006). Making ballot language understandable to voters. In Proceedings of the 2006 USENIX/ACCURATE Electronic Voting Technology Workshop. New York, NY: ACM.
25.
MillerJ. M.KrosnickJ. A. (1998). The impact of candidate name order on election outcomes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, 291–330.
26.
NiemiR. G.HerrnsonP. S. (2003). Beyond the butterfly: The complexity of U.S. ballots. Perspectives on Politics, 1, 317–326.
TraugottM. W.HanmerM. J.ParkW.-H.HerrnsonP. S.NiemiR. G.BedersonB. B.ConradF. G. (2005). The impact of voting systems on residual votes, incomplete ballots, and other measures of voting behavior. Chicago, IL: Midwest Political Science Association.
32.
U.S. Election Assistance Commission. (2015). Voluntary Voter System Guidelines Version 1.1. Washington, DC: Author.
33.
WandJ. N.ShottsK. W.SekhonJ. S.MebaneW. R.Jr.HerronM. C.BradyH. E. (2001). The butterfly did it: The aberrant vote for Buchanan in Palm Beach County, Florida. American Political Science Review, 95, 793–810.
