For Immediate Release
January 22, 2008
Contacts: Neil Tickner, 301 405 4622 or email@example.com
Touch Screen Voting a Hit; Critics Miss Mark on Security, Study Says
College Park, Md. - 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.
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 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
Voter Verification System Findings
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
Recommendations and Guidelines for Manufacturers
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.
Funding for the studies was provided by the National Science Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Maryland State Board of Elections.
Paul Herrnson, principal investigator, University of Maryland Center for American Politics and Citizenship;
Information provided by the Office of University Communications
Email University Communications at firstname.lastname@example.org