Annals of Telecommunications

, Volume 71, Issue 7–8, pp 309–322 | Cite as

An investigation into the usability of electronic voting systems for complex elections

  • Jurlind Budurushi
  • Karen Renaud
  • Melanie Volkamer
  • Marcel Woide
Article

Abstract

Many studies on electronic voting evaluate their usability in the context of simple elections. Complex elections, which take place in many European countries, also merit attention. The complexity of the voting process, as well as that of the tallying and verification of the ballots, makes usability even more crucial in this context. Complex elections, both paper-based and electronic, challenge voters and electoral officials to an unusual extent. In this work, we present two studies of an electronic voting system that is tailored to the needs of complex elections. In the first study, we evaluate the effectiveness of the ballot design with respect to motivating voters to verify their ballot. Furthermore, we identify factors that motivate voters to verify, or not to verify, their ballot. The second study also addresses the effectiveness of the ballot design in terms of verification, but this time from the electoral officials’ perspective. Last, but not least, we evaluate the usability of the implemented EasyVote prototype from both the voter and electoral official perspectives. In both studies, we were able to improve effectiveness, without impacting efficiency and satisfaction. Despite these usability improvements, it became clear that voters who trusted the electronic system were unlikely to verify their ballots. Moreover, these voters failed to detect the “fraudulent” manipulations. It is clear that well-formulated interventions are required in order to encourage verification and to improve the detection of errors or fraudulent attempts.

Keywords

Electronic voting Usability Verification Paper audit trails Complex elections 

References

  1. 1.
    Bundeswahlgerteverordnung of 3 september 1975 (bgbl. i p. 2459), last changed on 20 april 1999 (bgbl. i p. 749). http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/bwahlgv/gesamt.pdf (German only), last accessed 16 November 2015
  2. 2.
    A study of vote verification technology conducted for the Maryland State Board of Elections Part II: Usability Study (2006). http://www.capc.umd.edu/rpts/MarylandReport accessed 16 November 2015
  3. 3.
    Benaloh J (2006) Simple verifiable elections. In: Proceedings of the USENIX workshop on electronic voting technology, pp 5–14. USENIXGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benaloh J (2007) Ballot casting assurance via voter-initiated poll station auditing. In: Proceedings of the USENIX workshop on electronic voting technology, pp 14–21. USENIXGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Brettes M (1875) Appareil pour voter, indiquer, autographier et contròler les votes. Bulletin Hebdomadaire d’Association Scientifique de France 384:376–378Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brooke J (1996) SUS—a quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Evaluation in Industry 189(194):4–7Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bruck S, Jefferson D, Rivest RL (2010) A modular voting architecture (“frog voting”). In: Towards trustworthy elections, pp 97–106. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Budurushi J, Jöris R, Volkamer M (2014) Implementing and evaluating a software-independent voting system for polling station elections. Journal of Information Security and Applications 19(2):105–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Budurushi J, Renaud K, Volkamer M, Woide M (2014) Implementation and evaluation of the EasyVote tallying component and ballot. In: Krimmer R, Volkamer M (eds) Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Electronic Voting (EVOTE): Verifying the Vote, pp 1–8. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Budurushi J, Volkamer M (2014) Feasibility analysis of various electronic voting systems for complex elections. In: Parycek P, Edelmann N (eds) International Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government 2014, pp 141–152. Edition Donau-Universität KremsGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Budurushi J, Woide M, Volkamer M (2014) Introducing precautionary behavior by temporal diversion of voter attention from casting to verifying their vote. In: Workshop on usable security (USEC). Internet SocietyGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Canard S, Sibert H (2006) Votinbox—a voting system based on smart cards. In: Workshop on e-voting and e-government in the UKGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chaum D (2004) Secret-ballot receipts: true voter-verifiable elections. IEEE Secur Priv 2(1):38–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cohen SB (2005) Auditing technology for electronic voting machines. Master’s thesis, California Institute of Technology and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. http://vote.caltech.edu/sites/default/files/vtp_wp46.pdf, last accessed 16 November 2015
  15. 15.
    ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION: Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 1.1 Volume 1 (2015). http://www.eac.gov/assets/ 1/Documents/VVSG.1.1.VOL.1.FINAL.pdf, last accessed 16 November 2015Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Everett SP (2007) The usability of electronic voting machines and how votes can be changed without detection. Ph.D. thesis, PsychologyGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Federal Constitutional Court of Germany: Decisions: Order of 03 March 2009 - 2 BvC 3/07 (2009). http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2009/03/cs20090303_2bvc000307en.html, last accessed 16 November 2015
  18. 18.
    Franklin J, Myers JC (2012) Interpreting babel: classifying electronic voting systems. In: Kripp MJ, Volkamer M, Grimm R (eds) Proceedings of the 5th international conference on electronic voting (EVOTE). Bonn, LNI GI Series, pp 244–256Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Herrnson PS, Niemi RG, Hanmer MJ, Francia PL, Bederson BB, Conrad F, Traugott M (2005) The promise and pitfalls of electronic voting: results from a usability field test. http://www.capc.umd.edu/rpts/Promise_and_Pitfalls_of_Electronic_Voting.pdf, last accessed 16 November 2015
  20. 20.
    International organization for standardization: ISO 9241-11: Ergonomics of Human System Interaction – Part 11: Guidance on Usability (1998). https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:9241:-11:ed-1:v1:en, last accessed 16 November 2015
  21. 21.
    International organization for standardization: ISO 9241-210: Ergonomics of Human System Interaction – Part 210: Human-centred design processes for interactive systems (2010). https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:9241:-210:ed-1:v1:en, last accessed 16 November 2015
  22. 22.
    Krimmer R (2012) The evolution of e-voting: why voting technology is used and how it affects democracy. Ph.D. thesis, Public AdministrationGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Krimmer R, Volkamer M (2008) Observing threats to voters anonymity: election observation of electronic voting. In: Krishna SJ, Agarwal NK (eds) E-voting—perspectives and experiences, The Icfai University PressGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kuo C, Perrig A, Walker J (2006) Designing an evaluation method for security user interfaces: lessons from studying secure wireless network configuration. Journal of Interactions 13(3):28–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lindeman M, Stark PB (2012) A gentle introduction to risk-limiting audits. IEEE Secur Priv 10(5):42–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lindeman M, Stark PB, Yates VS (2012) BRAVO: ballot-polling risk-limiting audits to verify outcomes. In: Electronic voting technology workshop/workshop on trustworthy elections. USENIXGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Loeber L (2014) E-voting in the Netherlands; past, current, future?. In: Krimmer R, Volkamer M (eds) Proceedings of the 6th international conference on electronic voting (EVOTE). TUT Press, Tallinn, pp 43–46Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lohmann K, Schäffer J (2013) System usability scale (SUS)—an improved German translation of the questionnaire. http://minds.coremedia.com/2013/09/18/sus-scale-an-improved-german-translation-questionnaire/, last accessed 16 November 2015
  29. 29.
    MacNamara D, Scully T, Gibson PJ, Carmody F, Oakley K, Quane E (2011) Dualvote: addressing usability and verifiability issues in electronic voting systems. In: Parycek P, Kripp MJ, Edelmann N (eds) International Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government 2011, pp 313–322. Edition Donau-Universität KremsGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mercuri R (2001) Electronic vote tabulation checks & balances. Ph.D. thesis, University of PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Neff AC (2003) Election confidence: a comparison of methodologies and their relative effectiveness at achieving it. http://www.verifiedvoting.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/20031217.neff.electionconfidence.pdf, last accessed 16 November 2015
  32. 32.
    Pomares J, Levin I, Alvarez MR, Mirau GL, Ovejero T (2014) From piloting to roll-out: voting experience and trust in the first full e-election in Argentina. In: Krimmer R, Volkamer M (eds) Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Electronic Voting (EVOTE): verifying the vote, pp 1–10. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pozo J (2014) Implementation project electronic voting Azuay Ecuador 2014. In: Krimmer R, Volkamer M (eds) Proceedings of the 6th international conference on electronic voting (EVOTE). TUT Press, Tallinn, pp 47–60Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rivest RL, Wack JP (2006) On the notion of “software independence” in voting systems. http://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/RivestWack-OnTheNotionOfSoftwareIndependenceInVotingSystems.pdf http://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/RivestWack-OnTheNotionOf, last accessed 16 November 2015
  35. 35.
    Sandler D, Derr K, Wallach DS (2008) Votebox: a tamper-evident, verifiable electronic voting system. In: Proceedings of the 17th conference on security symposium, pp 349–364. USENIXGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sandler D, Wallach DS (2007) Casting votes in the auditorium. In: Proceedings of the USENIX workshop on electronic voting technology, pp 4–4. USENIXGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sauro J (2011) Measuring usability with the system usability scale (SUS). http://www.measuringu.com/sus.php, last accessed 16 November 2015
  38. 38.
    Selker T, Pandolfo A (2006) A methodology for testing voting systems. J Usability Stud 2(1):7–21Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sotirakopoulos A, Hawkey K, Beznosov K (2010) ‘I did it because I trusted you’: challenges with the study environment biasing participant behaviours. In: SOUPS usable security experiment reports (USER) workshopGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Stark PB (2009) Efficient post-election audits of multiple contests: 2009 california tests. In: CELS 2009 4Th annual conference on empirical legal studies paperGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Stark PB, Teague V (2014) Veriable european elections: risk-limiting audits for d’hondt and its relatives. USENIX Journal of Election Technology and Systems (JETS) 1(3):18– 39Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Stark PB, Wagner D (2012) Evidence-based elections. IEEE Secur Priv 10(5):33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Takaji DP (2004) The paperless chase: electronic voting and democratic values. Fordham L Rev 73:1711Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Vegas C (2012) The new belgian e-voting system. In: Brömme A, Busch C (eds) Proceedings of the 5th international conference on electronic voting (EVOTE). Bonn, Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI), pp 199–211Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Volkamer M, Budurushi J, Demirel D (2011) Vote casting device with VV-SV-PAT for elections with complicated ballot papers. In: International workshop on requirements engineering for electronic voting systems (REVOTE), pp 1–8. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Volkamer M, Spycher O, Dubuis E (2011) Measures to establish trust in internet voting. In: ICEGOV 2011, Proceedings of the 5th international conference on theory and practice of electronic governance, ICEGOV ’11. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Vot.ar.: Vot.ar. http://www.vot-ar.com.ar/en/system-votation/, last accessed 16 November 2015
  48. 48.
    Weldemariam K, Villafiorita A (2008) Modeling and analysis of procedural security in (e)voting: the Trentino’s approach and experiences. In: Proceedings of the USENIX workshop on electronic voting technology, pp. 1–10. USENIXGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Yee KP, Wagner D, Hearst M, Bellovin SM (2006) Prerendered user interfaces for higher-assurance electronic voting. In: Proceedings of the USENIX workshop on electronic voting technology, pp 6–6. USENIXGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institut Mines-Télécom and Springer-Verlag France 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jurlind Budurushi
    • 1
  • Karen Renaud
    • 2
  • Melanie Volkamer
    • 1
  • Marcel Woide
    • 1
  1. 1.Technische Universtität DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany
  2. 2.University of GlasgowGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations