San Francisco’s Instant-runoff electionshow a dynamic ballot can overturn a confusing voting concept

Cayman SantoroSenior Design Project

DAI 505

2

Pg 3 - Problem and purpose Statement

Pg 4 - What is rank choice voting?

Pg 8 - Expert opinions

Pg 12 - Solution proposal and timeline

Pg 14 - Market research

Pg 16 - AIGA Standards

Pg 18 - Thumbnails / wireframes

Pg 22 - Final Solution

Pg 26 - Matrix evaluation

Pg 27 - conclusion

Pg 28 - appendix / bibliography

ta b l e o f c o n t e n t s

3

In 2002, San Francisco passed a bill that introduced Instant Run-Off Voting (or Rank Choice Voting) for all elections for supervisors or Mayor. In the following years, there have been reports of voters who complain the new system is too confusing to give an accurate vote.

This is backed up by the 2006 Mayor election in San Francisco. Just in district 4, Out of 21,985 ballots, over 2,000 of them were reportedly undervoted (which could either mean voters did not rank their choices, which defeats the purpose of Instant Run-Off Voting) and over 190 were Over-voted. This is a reported 11% error rate for an election which cannot accurately reflect a fair race.

These errors can be attributed to a confusing ballot design (along with a number of other factors such as income, race, and education).

In a society built upon democracy and the people’s right to vote, they should be allowed a system where they can accurately reflect their choices. Bad or confusing ballot design has always been an issue, most famously seen with the Butterfly Ballot Design in Florida for the 2000 presidential election.

A study carried out by USA Today and seven other newspapers in 2001 concluded that faulty design,not punch-card machines, was responsible for voters’ confusion in Palm Beach County in 2000. Despite this finding, states have focused their election-reform energies on upgrading old punch-card machines to optical-scan systems or on implementing electronic voting. They have dismissed or ignored the butterfly layout’s problematic design as an aberration— a similar issue can be seen with San Francisco’s Instant Runoff Voting system

This project sets out to create a ballot design that still utilizes Instant Run-Off Voting, however one that is easier to understand and reduce the number of over/under voting in various elections.

Sample IRV Ballot from the 2004 Election District 5 Board of Supervisors. The ballot image is cropped for legibility; the full District 5 ballot listed 22 candidates in each column.

p r o b l e m a n d p u r p o s e s tat e m e n t

4

Rank choice voting (also known as instant run off) allows san francisco voters to vote for a first choice candidate, along with a second and third choice.

w h at i s r a n k c h o i c e v o t i n g ?

5

A B C

50% 25% 20%sTEP 1:

eVERY FIRST CHOICE IS COUNTED. IF ANY CANDIDATE RECEIVES A MAJORITY (MORE THAN 50%) OF FIRST-CHOICE VOTES IS DECLARED THE WINNER.

A B C

25% 40% 35%sTEP 2:

iF NO CANDIDATE RECEIVES MORE THAN 50% OF THE VOTE, A PROCESS OF ELIMINATING THE CANDIDATE WHO RECEIVED THE FEWEST VOTES AND TRANSFERRING VOTES BEGINS.

A B C

0% 55% 45% sTEP 3:

The voters who selected the eliminated candidate have their votes transferred to their second or third choice. votes are recounted and the process continues until there is a 50% majority.

h o w d o e s r a n k c h o i c e v o t i n g w o r k ?

6

In a survey conducted by 50 people, 40% of survey-takers said they found the San Francisco Ballot confusing.

40%said yes

Yes No

Do you find the San Francisco Instant run-off voting ballot confusing?

Reasons why ballot design was confusing:

• “I did not know some of the people on the ballot or why I would vote for them.”

• “SCared to mark the wrong area”

• “There is too much text on the ballot which makes it convoluted.”

7

Nearly 3.79% of 131,000 ballots for the November 2015 election were challenged due to errors. That accounts for nearly 4962 ballots.

8

No picture

Name: Barbara Carr

Profession: Head of Ballot Simplification Committee // Department of Elections San Francisco

San Francisco has been taking steps towards creating a more approachable ballot, however there still is a (albeit) small return for overvoting. Do you think that a paper solution is the best for rank choice voting?

We aim to use the space of each ballot card as efficiently as possible, and also to consider best practices for ballot design and usability. Balancing all of these sometimes-contradictory requirements and considerations within an extremely tight time frame is often very challenging.

e x p e r t o p i n i o n s

9

No picture

Name: Dave Heinemann

Profession: Elections Specialist // Elections Division Pierce County, Washington.

Why utilize Instant Run-Off Voting when the system was voted out of use just two years later?

Using the 2008 county general election as an example, it brought the most candidates since we adopted the charter, it promotes more competition. Participation was also shown to increase within our district. Majority of voters thought it of it as a more fair system than pick-a-party.

10

Since the study was conducted, San Francisco has been taking steps towards creating a more approachable ballot, however there still is a (albeit) small return for overvoting. Do you think that a paper solution is the best for rawwnk choice voting?

It depends on what a voter can trust and depends on. There are still holds and reserves against using an electronic system. With paper, there is only so much you can do, but an electronic system allows for more dynamic features.

Name: Corey Cook

Profession: Dean: School of Public Service at Boise State

Education: Doctor of Philosophy (PH.D.) in Political Science.

e x p e r t o p i n i o n s ( c o n t. )

11

67%said yes

Yes NoImprovements wanted to be seen:

• “It was difficult to read the ballot with the / marks between languages. I would suggest separate pages for each language with instructions to complete the ballot in only one language.

• “Clear and Concise candidate details”

• “It should be all digital. One Question at a time, all possible answers shown.”

Would you trust a computer to accurately and safely tally your vote?

In the same survey, 67% of survey-takers said would trust a computerized system. The other 33% said they would if the system provided a paper receipt at the end of the process.

12

f i n a l s o l u t i o nThroughout my surveys conducted, along with interviews, it seems that San Francisco has to move away from the past and into the future. I mean of course, using a computerized system to cast your vote. Paper simply cannot be an effective medium for using Rank Choice Voting.

Over the course of five months, I have sketched up various wireframes and gathered inspiration from extremely clean User Interface / User Experience examples of a potential voting system that can be utilized on touch screen interfaces.

One of the biggest fears is utilizing a computer system to cast a ballot, however, according to surveys and interviews, those who do not trust a computer would trust it if it leaves a paper receipt at the end of the voting process.

My system is a stepping stone into a more confident and easily cast vote.

13

Define Problem

Research: Initial Problem

Primary Research

Develop Mockups

Develop Final Solution

Problem Proposal

Literary Research

Interviews

Surveys

Market Research

August 24 - 31

Brainstorming / Iterations

Prototyping / Wireframing

User Testing

Final Mockup

Create Presentation

September 1-30

October 1-31

November 1-30

December 1-11

W1 W2 W3 W4 W1 W2 W3 W4 W1 W2 W3 W4 W1 W2 W3 W4 W1 W2 W3 W4

t i m e l i n e

14

Sample IRV Ballot from the 2004 Election District 5 Board of Supervisors. The ballot image is cropped for legibility; the full District 5 ballot listed 22 candidates in each column. This ballot only allows for three choices.

Potential sample ballot that allows more candidate choices than San Francisco’s instant run-off voting ballot.

Potential sample ballot that allows more candidate choices than San Francisco’s instant run-off voting ballot. Detailed vision of how more than three choices can be on a ballot.

m a r k e t r e s e a r c h ( p a p e r b a l l o t s )

15

Dominion Systems

“At Dominion, we are exclusively election specialists, and our product line reflects our focus on election automation needs: digital optical precinct-level scanners, central scanners, elections databases, accessible voting, touchscreen voting, automation tools, ballot printing, and the accompanying election support services.

Dominion’s Commitment to producing the highest quality election automation products is reflected in our substantial investment in development and engineering. “

This service is currently utilized in San Francisco with their Optical Scanners while still using a paper ballot (pictured earlier) to help cast your vote.

Sequoia Voting Systems

Sequoia Voting Systems was a California-based company that is one of the largest providers of electronic voting systems in the U.S., having offices in Oakland, Denver and New York City. Some of its major competitors were Premier Election Solutions (formerly Diebold Election Systems) and Election Systems & Software.

It was acquired by Denver-based Dominion Voting Systems on June 4, 2010. At the time it had contracts for 300 jurisdictions in 16 states including Alameda County, one of the few sites to use touchscreens to cast your vote.

The system required you to put in a card, pick your choice, confirm your choice then a print out of your choice would be printed.

Everyone Counts

“Today’s traditional purpose-built voting machines are rapidly making their way to metal recycling yards around the world. The future of voting requires a secure, scalable, cost effective solution that enables online voting on mobile devices, and ensures a robust election administration system that authenticates and validates votes while enfranchising voters.”

Everyone Counts plans to create a system where “Off the Shelf” items, such as tablets and monitors, can be used to create polling stations. Their aim to create a system thats approachable for everyone.

They aim to educate the voter before they arrive to the polling place through videos, social media campaigns, etc.

M a r k e t r e s e a r c h ( v o t i n g s y s t e m s )

16

1.) use lowercase letters

2.) avoid centered type

3.) use big enough type

4.) pick one sans-serif font

5.) support process and navigation

6.) use clear, simple language

7.) use accurate instructional illustrations

8.) use informational icons (only)

9.) use contrast and color functionality

10.) decide what’s most important

a i g a : t o p 10 e l e c t i o n d e s i g n g u i d e l i n e s

17

i n s p i r at i o n b o a r d

18

t h u m b n a i l s / w i r e f r a m e s

19

20

T h u m b n a i l s / W i r e f r a m e s ( c o n t. )

21

22https://vimeo.com/148221952

f i n a l s o l u t i o n ( v i d e o )

23

Candidates

Propositions

Please choose which to begin:

Screen Setting Icons

Joe Montana

Colin Kaepernick

Alex Smith

Leads to Pop-up Windowon Candidate with more information

Sorting IconsError!

^ëëáëí ~åÅÉo Éî áÉï i çÖ=l ì ípÉí í áåÖëp~å=cê~åÅáëÅç=sçí áåÖpâáé_~Åâ

f i n a l s o l u t i o n a s s e t s

These are various icons, assets and buttons that help voters navigate the intuitive system. Screen setting icons are prevalent on every screen to help visually impaired voters (allowing for zooming in and out, adjusting brightness and contrast, and providing an audio option). Sorting icons allow the voter to sort candidates in a variety of methods, such as alphabetical, randomized shuffle, and party affiliation. Buttons are simple and easy to read with icons to help be easily recognized.

24

f i n a l s o l u t i o n a s s e t s ( c o n t. )

For each choice, candidates are listed in an order of the User’s choosing (if not chosen, then they will be randomly displayed). Pertinent information will be displayed (party affiliation) and additional information can be gathered by selecting the “ information button.” If many candidates are displayed, the window will either stretch, or utilize a scrolling feature to display all the candidates. Voters are also given the option to write in a candidate. Once a candidate is selected, a list of the candidates will appear again to make your second choice (with your first choice being previously marked).

25

Candidate Information

Joe Montana Athlete

This is an example screen of what would occur when a voter hits the “ information button” alongside a candidate. A window will pop up, giving a little bit of background about the candidate (which will be written by the simplification board with approval by the candidate themselves). It will feature a list of what the candidate supports, and who/what supports the candidate. This helps voters become more informed on their decisions for voting.

m at r i x c o m p a r i s o n

easy to usedifficult to use

Trustworthy

Not Trustworthy

Dominion systems

dynamic rank choice

Sequoia systems

Butterfly Ballot

The current system for voting, which is run by Dominion Systems, is the standard paper ballot featured at the beginning of the process book. Voters tended to trust the system more, but the original problem stems from its difficulty to decipher rank choice voting.

Sequoia systems was one of the first companies to utilize touchscreens, however they were aquired by Dominion Systems and touch screens are seldom seen.

Butterfly Ballot is considered the worst instance of Ballot Design, with confusing marking patterns, along with errors in vote counts.

Dynamic Rank Choice voting is a process that needs to be accostomed to. However, with high ease-of-use, Dynamic Rank Choice can move up to become more trustworthy.

26

c o n c l u s i o n

27

San Francisco is known as being the emerging Tech-Capital of America. Recognized for it’s start-up culture of new and exciting technologies and services, and home to powerhouse tech giants Apple and Google, So shouldn’t San Francisco’s Ballot also be a product of technology?

From the Butterfly Ballot, to the errors of today’s Ballot, my system for Rank Choice Voting would allow anyone (especially the greatest concentration of Apple Users in America) to have more informed and more confident in their votes that they cast.

Rank Choice Voting, confusing as it may be, is not going anywhere, anytime soon. However, with a dynamic ballot, the difficulty of approaching a new format of voting can be overcome.

28

1.) What is your experience with voting in San Francisco?

In 2006, I had conducted a study with Professor Francis Neely where we observed the first three years of San Francisco’s Instant Runoff Voting. We wanted to determine if some people were able to adapt more easily than others to a more complex ballot and decision task.

2.) Since the study was conducted, San Francisco has been taking steps towards creating a more approachable ballot, however there still is a (albeit) small return for overvoting. Do you think that a paper solution is the best for rank choice voting?

It depends on what a voter can trust and depends on. There are still holds and reserves against using an electronic system. With paper, there is only so much you can do, but an electronic system allows for more dynamic features.

3.) Would you consider a computerized touch screen system that was approachable by all an acceptable solution? Why or why not?

It would have to include features for those who are hard of hearing, or blind. But I don’t see why not?

4.) In your expert opinion, is rank choice voting a viable option despite having it to be explained to newcomers to the system?

This has been an issue for hundreds (or even thousands of years) in Democracy’s life. What constitutes a true majority system. Yes Instant Run-off voting has its flaws, but I think it is a progressive start to having a majority decision.

Name: Corey Cook

Profession: Dean: School of Public Service at Boise State

Education: Doctor of Philosophy (PH.D.) in Political Science.

A p p e n d i x / B i b l i o g r a p h y

29

1.) What is your experience with voting in San Francisco?

I am in charge of the Ballot Simplification Committee. We work in public meetings to prepare fair and impartial summary of each local ballot measure in simple language. These summaries, or “digests,” are printed in San Francisco’s Voter Information Pamphlet, which is mailed to every registered voter before the election.

2.) What goes into the design of a ballot?

Our Publications division works with our voting system vendor, Dominion Voting Systems, to compile and lay out the required information for ballots that will be as easy and clear as possible for voters to use while also meeting the requirements of the federal Voting Rights Act, California Elections Code, the San Francisco Charter, the San Francisco Municipal Elections Code, San Francisco’s Language Access Ordinance, and the functional requirements of the voting system.

3.) Since the study was conducted, San Francisco has been taking steps towards creating a more approachable ballot, however there still is a (albeit) small return for overvoting. Do you think that a paper solution is the best for rank choice voting?

We aim to use the space of each ballot card as efficiently as possible, and also to consider best practices for ballot design and usability. Balancing all of these sometimes-contradictory requirements and considerations within an extremely tight time frame is often very challenging.

4.) Would you consider a computerized touch screen system that was approachable by all an acceptable solution? Why or why not?

With our ballots, our current system cannot support than three candidates for a RCV contest. We’ve been exploring other options to be able to lay out more than three candidates, electronic being one of them.

5.) In your expert opinion, is rank choice voting a viable option despite having it to be explained to newcomers to the system?

We work towards making it approachable for all walks of life and creeds, that is the purpose of our committee to create a ballot that is easily understood. We open our meetings to the community so you can provide input. The challenging part is balancing the requirements, but creating a system that pleases everyone.

Name: Barbara Carr

Profession: Head of Ballot Simplification Committee // Department of Elections San Francisco

No picture

30

1.) What is your experience with voting in Rank Choice Voting?

In 2006, voters approved an amendment to the Pierce County Charter that instituted Ranked Choice Voting for some races. RCV was used for the first time in the 2008 General Election. I helped develop explanations for the system for voters to easily understand on a voters ballot.

2.) Why don’t you use Rank Choice Voting anymore?

Voters just didn’t like it. They would call and ask who came up with this idea and how did we get this way to vote. We would answer them that the voter’s just passed it. We got rid of it in 2009 through another vote. We heard RCV does not promote informed voting. Voters have to chose from a long list of candidates, and a majority did not select a second or third choice.

3.) Were there any reasons to keep Rank Choice Voting?

Using the 2008 county general election as an example, it brought the most candidates since we adopted the charter, it promotes more competition. Participation was also show to increase participation within our district. Majority of voters thought it of it as a more fair system than pick-a-party.

4.) Would you consider a computerized touch screen system that was approachable by all an acceptable solution? Why or why not?

I believe the confusion in general with RCV was what brought people to not become a fan. I believe if something more approachable was presented, then RCV could have had more of a chance than it did. We now utilize electronic touch screen voting machines that seem to be popular.

5.) In your expert opinion, is rank choice voting a viable option despite having it to be explained to newcomers to the system?

According to how the voters reacted here in Pierce County, it apparently is not a viable option. We have made the switch to simple majority (unless no candidate gets above 50% then the top go again for election).

Name: Dave Heinemann

Profession: Elections Specialist // Elections Division Pierce County, Washington.

No picture

A p p e n d i x / B i b l i o g r a p h y ( c o n t. )

31

• Cook, C., Neely, F. (2014, September 19) Overvoting and the Equality of Voice under Instant-Runoff Voting in San Francisco. Retrieved from http://apr.sagepub.com/content/36/4/530.abstract

3 years of San Francisco’s instant-runoff voting (IRV) elections are examined to determine whether some voters adapt more easily than others to the more complex ballot and decision task. They draw on studies of uncounted votes to develop hypotheses about tendencies to undervote, overvote, and rank candidates in IRV elections. Individual ballot records and precinct-level census data are used to estimate the relative influences of demographic and election-specific factors. A natural experiment tests whether or not prior experience with IRV makes a difference. The change to IRV appears to have increased the rate of overvotes and decreased tendencies to undervote. Both behaviors are explained by demographics and aspects of the electoral environment. Meanwhile, tendencies to rank candidates were shaped less by demographics and more by contextual factors and prior exposure to IRV. The findings extend the literature on uncounted votes, inform issues of equality in elections, and provide practical insights on this type of electoral reform.

• Burnett, C., Kogan, V. (2014, November 5) Ballot (and Voter) ‘Exhaustion’ Under Instant Runoff Voting: An Examination of Four Ranked-Choice Elections. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2519723

Some proponents of municipal election reform advocate for the adoption of Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), a method that allows voters to rank multiple candidates according to their preferences. Although supporters claim that IRV is superior to the traditional primary-runoff election system, research on IRV is limited. The authors analyze data taken from images of more than 600,000 ballots cast by voters in four recent local elections. We document a problem known as ballot “exhaustion,” which results in a substantial number of votes being discarded in each election. As a result of ballot exhaustion, the winner in all four of our cases receives less than a majority of the total votes cast, a finding that raises serious concerns about IRV and challenges a key argument made by the voting system.

• Darcy, R., Schneider, A. (1989, September) Confusing Ballots, Roll-off, and the Black Vote. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/448432

A book that addresses the issues of how proponents of social status (such as class, race, wealth, etc.) can affect the turnout rate of voters.

• Kimball, D., Kropf, M. (2005, Winter) Ballot Design and Unrecorded Votes on Paper-Based Ballots. Retrieved from http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/content/69/4/508.abstract#cited-by

The 2000 presidential election focused attention on the problem of unrecorded votes, in which a person casts a ballot but fails to record a valid vote for a particular contest. Although much recent research has evaluated voting technologies and their effects on unrecorded votes, there has been little research on the effects of ballot design. We argue that the same theories used to design and evaluate self-administered surveys can be used to analyze ballot features. We collect and code paper-based ballots used in the 2002 general election from 250 counties in 5 states. The journal code the ballots in terms of several graphic design elements, including the content and location of ballot instructions and the layout of candidate names and office titles. Our analysis suggests that several ballot features are associated with unrecorded votes (both overvotes and undervotes) in the gubernatorial contests. We also find that ballot design features exacerbate the racial disparity in unrecorded votes. Ballot design can be an important factor in determining whether voters are able to cast a ballot accurately, which can influence the legitimacy of elections.

• Bain, H., Sumner, D. (1957) Ballot Position and Voter’s Choice the arrangement of Names on the Ballot and its effect on the Voter. London: Greenwood Press.

How the arrangement of names can affect the choices on voter ballots. Such an example can include how an uninformed voter can select the top left corner candidate because it is where the brain and eyes usually travel to where we start a page to read it.

• Bain, H., Sumner, D. (1957) Ballot Position and Voter’s Choice the arrangement of Names on the Ballot and its effect on the Voter. London: Greenwood Press.

The four vote choice models are analyzed by reference to several different psychological theories of decision making. Much of the method and theory is drawn from psychological research on decision making in consumer research.

32

• AIGA. (2015) Ballot Design Samples: Design for Democracy. http://www.aiga.org/ballot-design-samples/

Designers for the American Institute of Graphic Arts take on the challenge on redesigning ballots in a campaign called “Design for Democracy.” Examples and work of other designers to see aesthetic design choices made for paper ballots.

• Scanlon, J. (2003, October 6) Wanted: A Legible Voting Ballot; Why It’s Time to Redesign the Ballot Design Process. http://www.slate.com/articles/business_and_tech/design/2003/10/wanteda_legible_voting_ballot.html

An article on Slate that addresses how it was the design of the ballot in the Butterfly Ballot scandal was the underlying cause of errors, not the way they counted the ballots.

• Cerabino, F. (2010, November 9) Ten years later, infamous 2000 election ballot recount still defines Palm Beach County to many. Palm Beach Post. Retrieved from http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/ten-years-later-infamous-2000-election-ballot-reco/nLmZd/

How the design of a ballot can be a defining feature for a district.

• Reilly, S. Richey, S. (2009, October 9) Ballot Question Readability and Roll-Off: The Impact of Language Complexity. Retrieved from http://prq.sagepub.com/content/64/1/59.abstract

Ballot questions often feature obscure and legalistic language that is difficult to comprehend. Because the language of ballot questions is often unclear, the authors hypothesize that questions with lower readability will have higher roll-off because voters will not answer questions they do not understand. The authors use an objective measure of readability to code readability scores for 1,211 state-level ballot questions from 1997 to 2007. The authors find that increased complexity leads to more roll-off. The authors further analyze some possible influences on readability by examining whether it is affected by the question topic.