Advertisement

Users’ Mental Models for Three End-to-End Voting Systems: Helios, Prêt à Voter, and Scantegrity II

  • Claudia Z. AcemyanEmail author
  • Philip Kortum
  • Michael D. Byrne
  • Dan S. Wallach
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9190)

Abstract

This study sought to understand voter’s mental models for three end-to-end (e2e) voting systems: Helios, Prêt à Voter, and Scantegrity II. To study voters’ mental models of e2e systems, 16 Houston area voters participated in mock elections that required them to vote first with a paper ballot and then with the three e2e systems. After using each system, subjects were asked to draw their mental model—or how the system works, then describe it to the experimenter, and last complete an interview. We found that most participants think about the systems first and foremost in terms of how-to-vote procedures, rather than detailed, conceptual models that describe all aspects of a system, including how they work. When designing e2e voting systems, the findings from this study can be used by system developers to ensure that voters find the systems easy to use and that the designs align with voters’ pre-existing mental models for voting.

Keywords

Mental models Voting systems End-to-end voting methods User centered design 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research has been supported in part by NSF award CNS-1049723. We would also like to thank Molly Ahn for assisting with the study.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Adida, B.: Helios: Web-based open-audit voting. In: USENIX Security Symposium, pp. 335–348 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ryan, P.Y.A., Bismark, D., Heather, J., Schneider, S., Xia, Z.: Prêt à voter: a voter-verifiable voting system. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 4, 662–673 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chaum, D., Essex, A., Carback, R., Clark, J., Popoveniuc, S., Sherman, A., Vora, P.: Scantegrity: End-to-end voter-verifiable optical-scan voting. IEEE Secur. Priv. 6, 40–46 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Acemyan, C.Z., Kortum, P., Byrne, M.D., Wallach, D.S.: Usability of voter verifiable, end-to-end voting systems: baseline data for Helios, Prêt à Voter, and Scantegrity II. USENIX J. Elect. Technol. Syst. 2, 26–56 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Winckler, M., Bernhaupt, R., Palanque, P., Lundin, D., Leach, K., Ryan, P., Alberdi, E., Strigini, L.: Assessing the usability of open verifiable e-voting systems: a trial with the system Prêt à voter. In: Proceedings of ICEGOV 2009. pp. 281–296 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rouse, W.B., Morris, N.M.: On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the search for mental models. Psychol. Bull. 100, 349–363 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Norman, D.A.: Some observationson mental models. In: Gentner, D., Stevens, A.L. (eds.) Mental Models, pp. 7–14. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1983)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rasmussen, J.: On the structure of knowledge: a morphology of mental models in a man-machine system context. Risø National Laboratory, Risø (1979)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Byrne, M., Greene, K., Everett, S.: 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, ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lundin, D., Ryan, P.Y.: Human readable paper verification of Prêt à voter. In: Jajodia, S., Lopez, J. (eds.) ESORICS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5283, pp. 379–395. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ryan, P.Y., Peacock, T.: A threat analysis of Prêt à voter. In: Chaum, D., Jakobsson, M., Rivest, R.L., Ryan, P.Y., Benaloh, J., Kutylowski, M., Adida, B. (eds.) Towards Trustworthy Elections, New Directions in Electronic Voting. LNCS, vol. 6000, pp. 200–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ryan, P.Y., Schneider, S.A.: Prêt à voter with re-encryption mixes. In: Gollmann, D., Meier, J., Sabelfeld, A. (eds.) ESORICS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4189, pp. 313–326. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Carback, R., Chaum, D., Clark, J., Conway, J., Essex, A., Herrnson, P., Mayberry, T., Popoveniuc, S., Rivest, R.L., Shen, E., Sherman, A., Vora, P.L.: Scantegrity II municipal election at Takoma Park: the first E2E binding governmental election with ballot privacy. In: Proceedings of the 19th USENIX Security Symposium (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    The City of Takoma Park Maryland. http://www.takomaparkmd.gov
  16. 16.
    Sherman, A.T., Carback, R., Chaum, D., Clark, J., Essex, A., Herrnson, P.S., Mayberry, T., Popoveniuc, S., Rivest, R.L., Shen, E., Sinha, B., Vora, P.: Scantegrity mock election at Takoma Park. In: Proceedings of the NIST Workshop on End-to-end Voting Systems, pp. 45–61 (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kieras, D.E., Bovair, S.: The role of a mental model in learning to operate a device. Cogn. Sci. 8, 255–273 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudia Z. Acemyan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Philip Kortum
    • 1
  • Michael D. Byrne
    • 1
    • 2
  • Dan S. Wallach
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyRice UniversityHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceRice UniversityHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations