Can Voters Detect Errors on Their Printed Ballots? Absolutely

There is still debate on whether voters can detect malicious changes in their printed ballot after making their selections on a Ballot Marking Device (BMD). In this study, we altered votes on a voter's ballot after they had made their selections on a BMD. We then required them to examine their...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:arXiv.org 2022-04
Hauptverfasser: Kortum, Philip, Byrne, Michael D, Azubike, Chidera O, Roty, Laura E
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page
container_title arXiv.org
container_volume
creator Kortum, Philip
Byrne, Michael D
Azubike, Chidera O
Roty, Laura E
description There is still debate on whether voters can detect malicious changes in their printed ballot after making their selections on a Ballot Marking Device (BMD). In this study, we altered votes on a voter's ballot after they had made their selections on a BMD. We then required them to examine their ballots for any changes from the slate they used to vote. Overall accuracy was exceptionally high. Participants saw 1440 total contests, and of those 1440, there were a total of 4 errors, so total accuracy was 99.8%. Participants were able to perform with near-perfect accuracy regardless of ballot length, ballot type, number of altered races, and location of altered races. Detection performance was extremely robust. We conclude that with proper direction and resources, voters can be near-perfect detectors of ballot changes on printed paper ballots after voting with a BMD. This finding has significant implications for the voting community as BMD use continues to grow. Research should now focus on identifying administrative and behavioral methods that will prompt and encourage voters to check their BMD-generated ballots before they drop them in the ballot box.
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2653405849</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2653405849</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_26534058493</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNirEKwjAUAIMgWLT_EHAuxKSpdRDRWnF0KF1L1Se2hDx9eR38ezv4AU7HcTcRkTZmleSp1jMRh9ArpXS21taaSGyL1ssaGSjIIzDcWJZEOBp6WT2hI3mhzjPc5aF1Djns5P4a0A0M7rMQ00frAsQ_zsXyVFbFOXkRvgcI3PQ4kB9TozNrUmXzdGP-u74qmTds</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2653405849</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Can Voters Detect Errors on Their Printed Ballots? Absolutely</title><source>Free E- Journals</source><creator>Kortum, Philip ; Byrne, Michael D ; Azubike, Chidera O ; Roty, Laura E</creator><creatorcontrib>Kortum, Philip ; Byrne, Michael D ; Azubike, Chidera O ; Roty, Laura E</creatorcontrib><description>There is still debate on whether voters can detect malicious changes in their printed ballot after making their selections on a Ballot Marking Device (BMD). In this study, we altered votes on a voter's ballot after they had made their selections on a BMD. We then required them to examine their ballots for any changes from the slate they used to vote. Overall accuracy was exceptionally high. Participants saw 1440 total contests, and of those 1440, there were a total of 4 errors, so total accuracy was 99.8%. Participants were able to perform with near-perfect accuracy regardless of ballot length, ballot type, number of altered races, and location of altered races. Detection performance was extremely robust. We conclude that with proper direction and resources, voters can be near-perfect detectors of ballot changes on printed paper ballots after voting with a BMD. This finding has significant implications for the voting community as BMD use continues to grow. Research should now focus on identifying administrative and behavioral methods that will prompt and encourage voters to check their BMD-generated ballots before they drop them in the ballot box.</description><identifier>EISSN: 2331-8422</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Ithaca: Cornell University Library, arXiv.org</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Errors ; Voters ; Voting</subject><ispartof>arXiv.org, 2022-04</ispartof><rights>2022. This work is published under http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>776,780</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kortum, Philip</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Byrne, Michael D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Azubike, Chidera O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roty, Laura E</creatorcontrib><title>Can Voters Detect Errors on Their Printed Ballots? Absolutely</title><title>arXiv.org</title><description>There is still debate on whether voters can detect malicious changes in their printed ballot after making their selections on a Ballot Marking Device (BMD). In this study, we altered votes on a voter's ballot after they had made their selections on a BMD. We then required them to examine their ballots for any changes from the slate they used to vote. Overall accuracy was exceptionally high. Participants saw 1440 total contests, and of those 1440, there were a total of 4 errors, so total accuracy was 99.8%. Participants were able to perform with near-perfect accuracy regardless of ballot length, ballot type, number of altered races, and location of altered races. Detection performance was extremely robust. We conclude that with proper direction and resources, voters can be near-perfect detectors of ballot changes on printed paper ballots after voting with a BMD. This finding has significant implications for the voting community as BMD use continues to grow. Research should now focus on identifying administrative and behavioral methods that will prompt and encourage voters to check their BMD-generated ballots before they drop them in the ballot box.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Errors</subject><subject>Voters</subject><subject>Voting</subject><issn>2331-8422</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqNirEKwjAUAIMgWLT_EHAuxKSpdRDRWnF0KF1L1Se2hDx9eR38ezv4AU7HcTcRkTZmleSp1jMRh9ArpXS21taaSGyL1ssaGSjIIzDcWJZEOBp6WT2hI3mhzjPc5aF1Djns5P4a0A0M7rMQ00frAsQ_zsXyVFbFOXkRvgcI3PQ4kB9TozNrUmXzdGP-u74qmTds</recordid><startdate>20220420</startdate><enddate>20220420</enddate><creator>Kortum, Philip</creator><creator>Byrne, Michael D</creator><creator>Azubike, Chidera O</creator><creator>Roty, Laura E</creator><general>Cornell University Library, arXiv.org</general><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20220420</creationdate><title>Can Voters Detect Errors on Their Printed Ballots? Absolutely</title><author>Kortum, Philip ; Byrne, Michael D ; Azubike, Chidera O ; Roty, Laura E</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_26534058493</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Errors</topic><topic>Voters</topic><topic>Voting</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kortum, Philip</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Byrne, Michael D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Azubike, Chidera O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roty, Laura E</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kortum, Philip</au><au>Byrne, Michael D</au><au>Azubike, Chidera O</au><au>Roty, Laura E</au><format>book</format><genre>document</genre><ristype>GEN</ristype><atitle>Can Voters Detect Errors on Their Printed Ballots? Absolutely</atitle><jtitle>arXiv.org</jtitle><date>2022-04-20</date><risdate>2022</risdate><eissn>2331-8422</eissn><abstract>There is still debate on whether voters can detect malicious changes in their printed ballot after making their selections on a Ballot Marking Device (BMD). In this study, we altered votes on a voter's ballot after they had made their selections on a BMD. We then required them to examine their ballots for any changes from the slate they used to vote. Overall accuracy was exceptionally high. Participants saw 1440 total contests, and of those 1440, there were a total of 4 errors, so total accuracy was 99.8%. Participants were able to perform with near-perfect accuracy regardless of ballot length, ballot type, number of altered races, and location of altered races. Detection performance was extremely robust. We conclude that with proper direction and resources, voters can be near-perfect detectors of ballot changes on printed paper ballots after voting with a BMD. This finding has significant implications for the voting community as BMD use continues to grow. Research should now focus on identifying administrative and behavioral methods that will prompt and encourage voters to check their BMD-generated ballots before they drop them in the ballot box.</abstract><cop>Ithaca</cop><pub>Cornell University Library, arXiv.org</pub><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier EISSN: 2331-8422
ispartof arXiv.org, 2022-04
issn 2331-8422
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2653405849
source Free E- Journals
subjects Accuracy
Errors
Voters
Voting
title Can Voters Detect Errors on Their Printed Ballots? Absolutely
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-07T13%3A12%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=document&rft.atitle=Can%20Voters%20Detect%20Errors%20on%20Their%20Printed%20Ballots?%20Absolutely&rft.jtitle=arXiv.org&rft.au=Kortum,%20Philip&rft.date=2022-04-20&rft.eissn=2331-8422&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2653405849%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2653405849&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true