Skip to main content

Making Voting by Mail Usable, Accessible and Inclusive

  • 1220 Accesses

Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC,volume 500)

Abstract

Two groups of voters have historically faced challenges in voting by mail: first, voters who are blind, have low vision, or low dexterity; and second, the many adult Americans who read at Basic or Below Basic levels as defined by the National Adult Literacy Survey. Although for different reasons, both groups can find it challenging to navigate the complicated process of receiving, marking, and mailing a paper ballot privately, independently, and successfully. This paper describes a two-pronged effort to increase the accessibility and inclusivity of the vote by mail process: (1) helping Maryland make their online ballot marking tool significantly more usable and accessible through iterative usability testing and evaluation in 2013; and (2) using iterative usability testing and evaluation to revise paper instructions and envelopes in vote-by-mail packages—identifying and applying best practices of plain language and plain interaction in order to forestall common mistakes and increase trust.

Keywords

  • Voting
  • Absentee voting
  • Low literacy
  • Accessibility
  • Online ballot marking
  • Voting by mail

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-41962-6_5
  • Chapter length: 12 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-319-41962-6
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    In 2003, nearly 30 % of all voters used “absentee” ballots [3]. In 2008, the Election Assistance Commission reported on nationwide voting practices, recording that 16.6 % of voters used absentee ballots—in comparison to 13.0 % who used various forms of early voting. Of these absentee ballots, 1.7 % were rejected nationwide, but two states, Indiana and North Carolina, rejected more than 10 % of their absentee ballots. Reasons included missing the deadline, lack of a valid signature, using an unsealed envelope, using an unofficial envelope, and not including a proper address [15].

  2. 2.

    The online ballot marking tool was successfully deployed in the Maryland 2014 General Election.

  3. 3.

    Detailed findings from this research are available in a report to the Maryland State Board of Elections that has been posted at the Maryland State Board of Elections website.

References

  1. McDonald, P.J.: The affects of vote by mail on voter turnout, cost of elections, and ballot completion in the state of Washington from 1992 to 2012. PhD dissertation, Walden University (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Sled, S.M.: It’s in the mail: the effect of vote by mail balloting on voter turnout and policy outcomes in US eElections. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Barreto, M.A., Streb, M.J., Marks, M., Guerra, F.: Do absentee voters differ from polling place voters? New evidence from California. Public Opin Quart 70(2), 224–234 (2006)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  4. Miller, P., Powell, S.: Overcoming voting obstacles: the use of convenience voting by voters with disabilities. Am. Politics Res. 44(1), 28–55 (2016)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  5. Swierenga, S.J., Zantjer, R.S., Jackson, J.E., Ismirle, J., Blosser, S.R., Pierce, G.L.: Security implications for personal assistive technology in voting. In: Human Aspects of Information Security, Privacy, and Trust, pp. 582–591. Springer, Berlin (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Medlock, M.C., Wixon, D., Terrano, M., Romero, R., Fulton, B.: Using the RITE method to improve products: a definition and a case Study. Usability Professionals Assoc. 51 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kirsch, I.S.: Adult literacy in America: a first look at the results of the National Adult Literacy Survey. US Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, Washington, DC 20402 (Stock No. 065-000-00588-3) (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kaplan, D., Venezky, R.L.: Literacy and voting behavior: a bivariate probit model with sample selection. Soc. Sci. Res. 23(4), 350–367 (1994)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  9. Kutner, M., Greenberg, E., Jin, Y., Boyle, B., Hsu, Y., Dunleavy, E.: Literacy in everyday life: results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NCES 2007–480). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hayes, E.R., Valentine, T.: The functional literacy needs of low-literate adult basic education students. Adult Educ. Q. 40(1), 1–14 (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Summers, K., Chisnell, D., Davies, D., Alton, N., McKeever, M. Making voting accessible: designing digital ballot marking for people with low literacy and mild cognitive disabilities. In: 2014 Electronic Voting Technology Workshop/Workshop on Trustworthy Elections (EVT/WOTE 14) (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Summers, K., Summers, M.: Reading and navigational strategies of web users with lower literacy skills. Proc. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 42(1) (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Summers, K., Langford, J., Wu, J., Abela, C., Souza, R.: Designing web-based forms for users with lower literacy skills. Proc. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 43(1), 1–12 (2006)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  14. Canady, W.K., Thyer, B.A.: Promoting voting behavior among low income black voters using reminder letters: an experimental investigation. J. Soc. Soc. Welfare 17, 109 (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Election Assistance Commission.: 2008 election administration and voting survey: a summary of key findings, Nov 2009

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding for this research was provided in part by the Maryland State Board of Elections and in part by the Center for Civic Design.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathryn Summers .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix

Appendix

These are the questions about trust used in the paper ballot mailing process research, Round Three. Questions were rated from 1—strongly disagree to 5—strongly agree.

  • I felt like my information was safe with this voting process.

  • I felt confident that I did it the right way when I put the mailing package together.

  • I feel confident that my vote would arrive safely with this voting process.

  • I would like to vote by mail in an election using this process.

  • I feel confident that my vote would count in an election if I use this voting process.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Summers, K., Quesenbery, W., Pointer, A. (2016). Making Voting by Mail Usable, Accessible and Inclusive. In: Di Bucchianico, G., Kercher, P. (eds) Advances in Design for Inclusion. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 500. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41962-6_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41962-6_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-41961-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-41962-6

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)