Scott P. Robertson
Abstract
Electronic voting support systems should not focus only on ballot casting and recording. Instead, a user-centered perspective should be adopted for the design of a system that supports information gathering, organizing and sharing, deliberation, decision making, and voting. Relevant social science literature on political decision making and voting is used to develop requirements. A design concept is presented that supports extended information browsing using combined filtering from ballot materials and voter profiles. The system supports information sharing and participation in electronic dialogues. Voters may interweave information browsing, annotation, contextualized discussion, and ballot markup over extended time periods.
- Ackerman, M. 2001. The intellectual challenge of CSCW: The gap between social requirements and technical feasibility. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 15, 2-3, 181--205. Google Scholar
- Aldrich, J. 1993. Rational choice and turnout. Amer. J. Polit. Science 37, 246--278.Google Scholar
- Alvarez, R. M. 1997. Information and Elections. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
- Alvarez, R. M. and Hall, T. E. 2004. Point, Click, and Vote. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC. Google Scholar
- Bederson, B., Lee, B., Sherman, R., Herrnson, P., and Niemi, R. 2003. Electronic voting system usability issues. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, NY, 145--152. Google Scholar
- Beyer, H. and Holtzblatt, K. 1995. Apprenticing with the customer: A collaborative approach to requirements definition. Comm. ACM 38, 5 (May), 45--52. Google Scholar
- Beyer, H. and Holtzblatt, K. 1998. Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA. Google Scholar
- Bimber, B. 2001. Information and political engagement in America: The search for effects of information technology at the individual level. Polit. Resear. Quart. 54, 1, 53--67.Google Scholar
- Bødker, S. 1989. A human activity approach to user interfaces. Hum.-Comput. Interac. 4, 171--195.Google Scholar
- Bødker, S. 1991. Through the Interface: A Human Activity Approach to User Interface Design. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Google Scholar
- Cadiz, J. and Gupta, A. 2001. Privacy interfaces for collaboration. Microsoft Resear. Rep. MSR-TR-2001-82 (Sept.) Available at http://www.research.microsoft.com/research/coet/Privacy/TRs/01-82.pdf.Google Scholar
- Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project. 2001. Voting---what is, what could be. (July) California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA. Available at http://www.vote.caltech.edu/Reports/2001report.html.Google Scholar
- Campbell, A., Converse, P., Miller, W., and Stokes, D. 1960. The American Voter. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
- Carroll, J. M. and Rosson, M. B. 1998. Getting around the task-artifact cycle: How to make claims and design my scenario. ACM Trans. Inform. Syst. (TOIS), 10, 2 (April), 181--212. Google Scholar
- Carroll, J. M., Rosson, M. B., Chin, G., and Koenemann, J. 1998. Requirements development in scenario-based design. IEEE Trans. Softw. Engi. 24, 12 (Dec.), 1156--1170. Google Scholar
- Choo, C. W., Detlor, B., and Turnbull, D. 1998. A behavioral model of information seeking on the Web: Preliminary results of a study of how managers and IT specialists use the web. In Proceedings of the 61st ASIS Annual Meeting, Vol. 35. Preston, C. M. Ed. Information Today, Medford, NJ, 290--302.Google Scholar
- Choo, C. W., Detlor, B., and Turnbull, D. 2000. Information seeking on the Web: An integrated model of browsing and searching. First Monday 5, 2 (Feb.) Available at http://www.firstmonday. dk/issues/issue5_2/choo/.Google Scholar
- Compaine, B. 2001. The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
- Cook, T., Cringler, A., and Just, M. 1995. Considering the candidates. The Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
- Crotty, W. and Jacobson, G. 1980. American Parties in Decline. Little, Brown & Company, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
- CSAE. 1999. Final Post Election Report. (Feb.), 2. Committee for the Study of the American Electorate. George Washington University, Washington, DC. Availabel at http://www.gspm.org/csae/cgans5.html.Google Scholar
- Davis, R. Ed. 1994. Politics and the Media. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
- Dennis, J. 1991. The study of electoral behavior. In Crotty, W. Ed. Political science: Looking to the Future, Vol. III: Political Behavior. Northwestern University Press, Evanston, IL, 51--89.Google Scholar
- Doppelt, J. and Shearer, E. 1999. Nonvoters: America's No-Shows. Sage Press, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
- Enelow, J. and Hinich, M. 1984. The Spatial Theory of Voting. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
- Entman, R. 1989. Democracy Without Citizens. Oxford University Press, NY.Google Scholar
- Farquharson, R. 1969. Theory of Voting. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
- Federal Election Commission. 1990. Voting Systems Standards: Performance and Test Standards for Punch Card, Marksense, and Direct Recording Electronic Voting. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- Federal Election Commission. 2003. Usability Testing of Voting Systems. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, Available at http://www.fec.gov/pdf/usability_guides/usability.pdf.Google Scholar
- Fox, S. and Raine, L. 2002. Vital decisions: How Internet users decide what information to trust when they or their loved ones are sick. Pew Internet & American Life Project Report (May). Available at http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/pdfs/PIP_Vital_Decisions_May2002.pdf.Google Scholar
- Gerber, A. and Green, D. 1999. Does canvassing increase voter turnout?: A field experiment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 96, 19, 10939--10942.Google Scholar
- Godefroid, P., Herbsleb, J., Jagadeesan, L., and Li, D. 2000. Ensuring privacy in presence awareness systems: An automated verification approach. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW'00) (Dec.) Philadelphia, PA, 59--68. Google Scholar
- Hastie, R. and Pennington, N. 1989. Notes on the distinction between memory-based and on-line judgements. In Bassili, J. N. Ed. On-line Cognition in Person Perception. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
- Horrigan, J. and Rainie, L. 2002. Counting on the Internet. Pew Internet and American Life Project. (Dec.). Available at http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/pdfs/PIP_Expectations.pdf.Google Scholar
- Hudson, S. and Smith, I. 1996. Techniques for addressing fundamental privacy and disruption tradeoffs in awareness support systems. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW'96). Google Scholar
- Internet Policy Institute. 2001. Report of the National Workshop on Internet Voting: Issues and Research Agenda. (March) Available at http://www.netvoting.org/Resources/InternetVotingReport.pdf.Google Scholar
- Justice, H. 2003. Howard Dean's Internet push: Where will it lead? The New York Times. (Nov. 2).Google Scholar
- Kelley, S. and Mirer, T. 1974. The simple act of voting. The Amer. Polit. Science Rev. 68, 572--591.Google Scholar
- Larson, L. and Raine, L. 2002. The Rise of the e-citizen: How people use government agencies' web sites. Pew Internet & American Life Project Report (April). Available at http://www.pewinternet. org/reports/pdfs/PIP_Govt_Website_Rpt.pdf.Google Scholar
- Lau, T., Etzioni, O., and Weld, D. 1999. Privacy interfaces for information management. Comm. ACM 42, 10 (Oct.). Google Scholar
- Lau, R. and Redlawsk, D. 2001a. An experimental study of information search, memory, and decision making during a political campaign. In Kuklinski, J. Ed. Citizens and Politics: Perspectives from Political Psychology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
- Lau, R. and Redlawsk, D. 2001b. Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. Amer. J. Polit. Science, 45 (Oct.), 951--971.Google Scholar
- Leighley, J. 1996. Group membership and the mobilization of political participation. J. Polit. 58, 447--463.Google Scholar
- Leighley, J. E. and Nagler, J. 1992. Individual and systemic influences on turnout: Who votes? J. Polit. 54, 718--40.Google Scholar
- Lessig, L. 2003. The new road to the White House: How grassroots blogs are transforming presidential politics. Wired Magazine (Nov.).Google Scholar
- Lewis, P., McCracken, C., and Hunt, R. 1994. Politics: Who cares? Amer. Demograph. 16, 10, 20--26.Google Scholar
- Lodge, M., McGraw, K., and Stroh, P. 1989. An impression-driven model of candidate evaluation. Amer. Polit. Science Rev. 83, 2, 399--419.Google Scholar
- Lodge, M., Steenbergen, M., and Brau, S. 1995. The responsive voter: Campaign information and the dynamics of candidate evaluation. Amer. Polit. Science Rev. 89, 2, 309--326.Google Scholar
- Lodge, M., Taber, C., and Galonsky, C. 1999. The political consequences of motivated reasoning: Partisan bias in information processing. The Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, CA.Google Scholar
- Lord, C., Ross, L., and Lepper, M. 1979. Biased assiminlation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently condidered evidence. J. Person. Social Psych. 37, 2098--2109.Google Scholar
- Madden, M. 2003. America's online pursuits: The changing picture of who's online and what they do. Pew Internet & American Life Project Report (Dec.). Available at http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=106.Google Scholar
- Marchionini, G. M. 1995. Information Seeking in Electronic Environments. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Google Scholar
- McGraw, K., Lodge, M., and Stroh, P. 1990. Order effects in the evaluation of political candidates. Polit. Behav. 12, 1, 41--58.Google Scholar
- Nardi, B. A. 1996. Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models and distributed cognition. In Nardi, B. A. Ed. Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
- Neumann, P. 1993. Security criteria for electronic voting. The 16th National Computer Security Conference. Baltimore, MD (Sept.). Available at http://www.csl.sri.com/users/neumann/ncs93.html.Google Scholar
- NTIA 2000. Falling through the net III: Toward digital inclusion. National Telecommunications and Information Administration Report (Oct.).Google Scholar
- Patterson, T. 2002. The Vanishing Voter: Public Involvement in an Age of Uncertainty. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY.Google Scholar
- Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., and Johnson, E. J. 1993. The Adaptive Decision Maker. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
- Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. 1999. The Internet news audience goes ordinary, (Jan.). Available at http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=72.Google Scholar
- Rahn, W., Aldrich, J. H., and Borgida, E. 1994. Individual and contextual variations in political candidate appraisal. Amer. Polit. Science Rev. 88, 193--199.Google Scholar
- Rahn, W., Aldrich, J. H., Borgida, E., and Sullivan, J. L. 1990. A social-cognitive model of candidate appraisal. In Ferejohn, J., and Kuklinski, J. Eds. Information and Democratic Processes. University of Illinois Press, Champaign-Urbana, IL, 136--159.Google Scholar
- Reagle, J. and Cranor, L. 1999. The platform for privacy preferences. Comm. ACM 42, 2 (Feb.), 48--55. Google Scholar
- Redlawsk, D. 2001. You must remember this: A test of the on-line model of voting. 2001. J. Polit. 63 (Feb.), 29--58.Google Scholar
- Rice, A. 2004. Campaigns online: The Profound Impact of the Internet, Blogs, and e-Technologies in Presidential Political Campaigning. Center for the Study of American Government, Johns Hopkins University. Available at http://campaignsonline.org/reports/online.pdf.Google Scholar
- Rosenstone, S. and Hansen, J. 1993. Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. MacMillan, New York, NY.Google Scholar
- Rosson, M. B. and Carroll, J. M. 2002. Usability Engineering: Scenario-Based Development of Human-Computer Interaction. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA. Google Scholar
- Roth, S. K. 1998. Disenfranchised by design: Voting systems and the election process. Inform. Design J. 9, 1, 1--8.Google Scholar
- Roth, S. K. 2000. Human interfaces with election technology. White paper associated with the Human Factors Research on Voting Machines and Ballot Design: An Exploratory Study Project, University of Maryland. Available at http://www.capc.umd.edu/rpts/MD_EVote_Roth.pdf.Google Scholar
- Russomanno, J. 1999. Information seeking and TV network presidential campaign coverage: Mediated vs. ‘unfiltered’ messages in Campaign '96. Feedback, 40, 1, 20--28.Google Scholar
- Shamos, M. 1993. Electronic voting: Evaluating the threat. In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Computers Freedom and Privacy, Burlingame, CA. Available at http://www.cpsr.org/conferences/cfp93/shamos.html.Google Scholar
- Solop, F. 2001. Digital democracy comes of age: Internet voting and the 2000 Arizona Democratic primary election. Polit. Science Polit. 34, 2, 289--293.Google Scholar
- Suchman, L. 1994. Do categories have politics? The language/action perspective reconsidered. Comput. Supp. Coop. Work (CSCW), 2, 3, 177--190.Google Scholar
- Tolbert, C. and McNeal, R. 2001. Does the Internet increase voter participation in elections? The American Political Science Association, (Aug.), San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
- Wayne, L. 2000. On web, voters reinvent grass-roots activism. New York Times, May 21, Sec. 1, 30. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/library/poutics/camp/052100wh-websites.html.Google Scholar
- Weber, L. and Bergman, J. 2001. Who participates and how? A comparison of citzens ‘online’ and the mass public. The Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science Association (March).Google Scholar
- Wilson, T. D. 1997. Information behaviour: An interdisciplinary perspective. Inform. Process. Manag. 33, 4, 551--572. Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Voter-centered design: Toward a voter decision support system
Recommendations
Internet voting: a smarter way to vote in Pakistan
ICEGOV '13: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic GovernanceOver the years, the average voter turnout in Pakistan General Elections has been around 45%, ranking Pakistan among countries with the lowest turnout in the world. Some of the reasons contributing to this low turnout were found to be lack of trust in ...
Voting and political information gathering on paper and online
CHI EA '05: CHI '05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing SystemsElectronic voting is slowly making its way into American politics. At the same time, more voters and potential voters are using online news and political information sources to help them make voting choices. We conducted a mock-voting study, using real ...
New voter verification scheme using pre-encrypted ballots
In order for remote electronic voting systems to be reliable, voter verification is an essential feature. Most pre-encrypted ballot schemes proposed to date allow voters to verify that their votes have been properly recorded in the voting server. Such ...
Reviews
Fjodor J. Ruzic
In this provocative text on electronic voting, the author brings up the issue that implementing e-voting is not only a matter of developing e-voting technologies; there is also a need to develop voter support systems, integrating the political and social activities of the voter before and during the ballot. In this context, some basic notions are correlated with a new vision of voting systems that integrates voter support and decision-making. The author introduces several scenarios to examine the requirements for a user-centered electronic voter-support system. These bring up some questions of information technology and socio-cultural demography interaction that are not clearly visible to the reader (although a special section on ethical issues discusses some aspects of this interaction). New media technology means more than just the Web, especially in this age of information appliances, where ordinary citizens can use e-technology in an e-voting sense. The author stresses some basic ethical issues relating to verification, privacy, and security in any kind of e-voting system; in addition, one side effect of any e-technology based voting system is unequal opportunity to access, understand, and use the technology for e-voting purposes. The author found this relevant to the success of any e-voting system, with the concluding remark that voter-support systems must be developed in order to broaden voter participation. Although the author points out some critical issues in alienation from the voting process and the lack of participation of some social groups, constructive insight and classification of these issues in their relation with e-technologies is somehow missing. This work is interesting reading, with comprehensive references. It will be relevant to political party managers, local and state voting commissions, students and researchers in the field of policy studies, and specialists in e-voting technologies. Online Computing Reviews Service
Access critical reviews of Computing literature here
Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.
Comments