Electoral Ergonomics: Enhancing Voting Experience

FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Ergonomics is a discipline that studies the design and arrangement of things in order that humans may be able to use them more efficiently, comfortably and safely. Known also as human engineering, ergonomics has found wide application in the design of furniture and equipment for homes, offices, factories and vehicles.

Recently, the science has also been applied to elections in the hopes of understanding what makes voters vote and how to enhancing voter experience. Electoral ergonomics as defined by pioneers Bruter and Harrison, is “the optimization of all relevant electoral procedures and mechanisms to provide the best possible electoral experience for voters.”

Research has revealed that seemingly inconsequential things such as where a vote is cast, what method is used, at what time polling stations open, how the ballot is designed,  all matter greatly in shaping voters´ experience. Electoral ergonomics, although still in its infancy, may help us understand “who votes, how they vote, why they vote the way they do, and how they feel about it”.

Studying electoral ergonomics and its effects is one of the most scientifically complex tasks in the field of elections. It entails a complex and highly-nuanced interaction among psychological, technical, and sociocultural variables.

So far, electoral ergonomics has observed that voting is a highly emotional act that carries with it a lot of memories, pleasant and otherwise.  Voters attach various positive and negative emotions to the act of voting.

Emotions are significantly more positive for people who go to vote in person as compared to those who use postal voting. They feel prouder, happier, and more excited about the vote than those who use postal voting. Moreover, voters in person also end up feeling more reassured and more relaxed than those who use postal voting.

More importantly, as can be gleaned from the 2010 British General election, it was determined that voters aged 18-25 were nearly twice more likely to choose an extremist party if voting by mailing their ballots than at a polling station. Among 25-45 year old voters, the likeliness to vote for the extreme right also increases by 24%.  For the first time, the method of voting is being proven to have an effect on the choice of the voters.

Another interesting case study is one where advanced voting in polling stations was compared with mailed-in balloting , the two methods employed by the US to allow people who cannot go to vote on election day to participate in elections. Interestingly, it was revealed that voters who opted for advanced voting in polling centers perceived the elections to be more efficacious, trustworthy, and important as compared to those who selected mailed-in voting.

It may be deduced that the mere physical act of going to a voting center, hitherto not regarded as noteworthy, may be an important part of the voting experience, and may, in fact, influence the outcome of elections.

Electoral ergonomics is still in its infancy and much more research needs to be undertaken to validate assumptions. Yet initial findings are promising and may lead us to finally be able to tweak the many factors comprising an election to give the voter the best experience.  

Election administration in the US and the challenges ahead

Image: PEW Website

Today it is no secret to anyone that the US election administrators have a daunting challenge ahead of them. Since the butterfly ballot scandal caught worldwide attention and surfaced the obsolescence of its voting systems, elections in the US have been surrounded by controversy.

Fortunately, the demand for better electoral processes is finding interesting responses from both, Government related organisms (Electoral Assistance Commission) and the non-government sector. The body of knowledge being developed by these organizations will certainly disseminate better practices and improve how elections are run across all states.

The PEW Charitable Trust is one of these organizations promoting clean, transparent and efficient elections. A recent research project by this ONG, labeled The First Comprehensive Assessment of Election Administration Across the Nation, pinpoints the obstacles in the road to better run elections.

One of the most interesting ideas emanating from that initiative is the Elections Performance Index (EPI). The EPI was developed with the intent to provide election officials and policymakers with a tool to help them benchmark their performance, as well as assess which policies are working effectively.

Using 17 criteria the EPI analyzed the 2008 and 2010 elections across 50 states. Factors such as wait time, lost votes, availability of online voting information, voter turnout, accuracy of technology, among others, allowed the to assess the state of the US electoral system, and indicate a path to improve election administration.

The results obtained in the study, and the obvious next steps emanating from this initiative, come at very important moment. With the next election two years away, and the re-elected president willing to endorse the necessary changes, the US is in an important position to face and conquer the challenges ahead. 

The alluring idea of Internet voting

Image: The Pragmatist Blog

The extensive use of the Internet in almost all phases of our life has made the following question a recurring object of arguments and disagreements: How far are we from Internet Voting?

The idea of casting a vote at the moment and place that best suits the voter is indeed a very powerful one. Nonetheless, are we ready?

In a sense, it could be argued that, in the case of the US, postal voting paved the way for Internet voting by creating the legal and political conditions to allow early voting and remote voting, two key features for this convenient method to cast a vote.

Now, although the Internet is the one technology that can make voting easier, promote participation, and make the task of casting a vote as simple as sending a greeting card, many experts agree that we are not ready yet to undertake this form of e-voting. Some of the main arguments against Internet Voting are:     

• Coercion: As opposed to precinct voting, in which the casting of a vote is done in-site, Internet voting mostly occurs from a remote location in an uncontrolled environment. That opens the possibility for the coercion of the voter. Who can guarantee that the selection was done free from any kind of any pressure? At the moment, no one has the answer to that question. 
• Access: Even in the most developed nations, access to Internet is not sufficiently widespread. Forcing voters to adopt this voting system could disenfranchise voters with lower income or older generations of citizens that may not be acquainted with this technology. 
• Authentication: Internet voting opens the door to voter impersonation. How do you know that the cast vote really belongs to the person who sent the vote through the Internet? 
• Security: As of today, there is no way to guarantee that integrity of the will of the voter is not compromised. Moreover, being a part of a world wide web, Internet voting can be attacked from anywhere in the world.

Although the UK, Switzerland, USA, and a myriad of other countries have experienced Internet voting in regional or other minor elections, Estonia is the only country brave enough to take a national security matter, such as a national election, to the Internet.

According to a research paper called Internet Voting in Estonia, published by Alexander H. Trechsel, R. Michael Alvarez, and Thad E. Hall, in the Voting Technology Project, Estonia managed to mitigate the effects of the arguments explained above, and carry out successful elections. The 4 keys to the success of the Estonian experience are:

• Access: Widespread broadband Internet penetration. 
• Legal: A comprehensive legal structure supporting Internet voting issues. 
• Authentication: Identity cards distributed in Estonia posses an embedded digital certificate that, when combined with a unique personal identification number, allow for the authentication of the voter. This method depends on the voter's possibility to buy a $7 ID card reader and plugging it to his computer.  
• Political Culture: a political culture that is supportive of Internet voting. Political will.

Although Estonia is a happy example of the possibilities Internet is opening for the elections industry and democracy in general, it must said that only 140,000, nearly 25% of the eligible voters chose to vote online, while the rest of the voters went to their pre-assigned precincts to vote. 

The idea of Internet voting continues to gain adepts; nonetheless, for the sake of efficiency, transparency, and legitimacy, there is still a ways to go.