EasyVote计票组件和选票的实现和评估

Jurlind Budurushi, M. Volkamer, K. Renaud, Marcel Woide
{"title":"EasyVote计票组件和选票的实现和评估","authors":"Jurlind Budurushi, M. Volkamer, K. Renaud, Marcel Woide","doi":"10.1109/EVOTE.2014.7001140","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The German federal constitutional court ruled, in 2009, that elections had to have a public nature. EasyVote, a promising hybrid electronic voting system for conducting elections with complex voting rules and huge ballots, meets this requirement. Two assumptions need to hold, however. The first is that voters will verify the human-readable part of the EasyVote ballot and detect discrepancies. Secondly, that electoral officials will act to verify that the human-readable part of the ballot is identical to the machine-readable part, and that they, too, will detect discrepancies. The first assumption was tested in prior work, so in this paper we examine the viability of the second assumption. We developed an EasyVote tallying component and conducted a user study to determine whether electoral officials would detect discrepancies. The results of our user study show that our volunteer electoral officials did not detect all of the differences, which challenges the validity of the second assumption. Based on these findings we proceeded to propose two alternative designs of the EasyVote ballot: (1) In contrast to the original EasyVote ballot, the human-readable part highlights only the voter's direct selections in orange, i.e. votes that are automatically distributed by selecting a party are not highlighted; (2) The second alternative includes only the voter's direct selections and highlights them in orange. Both alternatives reduce the number of required manual comparisons and should consequently increase the number of discrepancies detected by election officials. We evaluated both alternatives in an online survey with respect to ease of verification and understandability of the cast vote, i.e. verifying that the human-readable part contained the voter's selections and understanding the impact (distribution of votes) of the corresponding selections. The results of the online survey show that both alternatives are significantly better than the original EasyVote ballot with respect to ease of verification and understandability. Furthermore, the first alternative is significantly better than the second with respect to understandability of the cast vote, and no significant difference was found between the alternatives with respect to ease of verification of the cast vote.","PeriodicalId":103279,"journal":{"name":"2014 6th International Conference on Electronic Voting: Verifying the Vote (EVOTE)","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Implementation and evaluation of the EasyVote tallying component and ballot\",\"authors\":\"Jurlind Budurushi, M. Volkamer, K. Renaud, Marcel Woide\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/EVOTE.2014.7001140\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The German federal constitutional court ruled, in 2009, that elections had to have a public nature. EasyVote, a promising hybrid electronic voting system for conducting elections with complex voting rules and huge ballots, meets this requirement. Two assumptions need to hold, however. The first is that voters will verify the human-readable part of the EasyVote ballot and detect discrepancies. Secondly, that electoral officials will act to verify that the human-readable part of the ballot is identical to the machine-readable part, and that they, too, will detect discrepancies. The first assumption was tested in prior work, so in this paper we examine the viability of the second assumption. We developed an EasyVote tallying component and conducted a user study to determine whether electoral officials would detect discrepancies. The results of our user study show that our volunteer electoral officials did not detect all of the differences, which challenges the validity of the second assumption. Based on these findings we proceeded to propose two alternative designs of the EasyVote ballot: (1) In contrast to the original EasyVote ballot, the human-readable part highlights only the voter's direct selections in orange, i.e. votes that are automatically distributed by selecting a party are not highlighted; (2) The second alternative includes only the voter's direct selections and highlights them in orange. Both alternatives reduce the number of required manual comparisons and should consequently increase the number of discrepancies detected by election officials. We evaluated both alternatives in an online survey with respect to ease of verification and understandability of the cast vote, i.e. verifying that the human-readable part contained the voter's selections and understanding the impact (distribution of votes) of the corresponding selections. The results of the online survey show that both alternatives are significantly better than the original EasyVote ballot with respect to ease of verification and understandability. Furthermore, the first alternative is significantly better than the second with respect to understandability of the cast vote, and no significant difference was found between the alternatives with respect to ease of verification of the cast vote.\",\"PeriodicalId\":103279,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2014 6th International Conference on Electronic Voting: Verifying the Vote (EVOTE)\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2014 6th International Conference on Electronic Voting: Verifying the Vote (EVOTE)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/EVOTE.2014.7001140\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2014 6th International Conference on Electronic Voting: Verifying the Vote (EVOTE)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/EVOTE.2014.7001140","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

2009年,德国联邦宪法法院裁定,选举必须具有公共性。EasyVote是一个很有前途的混合电子投票系统,可以进行复杂的投票规则和大量选票的选举,符合这一要求。然而,有两个假设必须成立。首先,选民将验证EasyVote选票中人类可读的部分,并发现差异。其次,选举官员将采取行动,核实选票上人类可读的部分与机器可读的部分是否相同,并且他们也将发现差异。第一个假设在之前的工作中得到了检验,因此在本文中,我们将检验第二个假设的可行性。我们开发了一个EasyVote统计组件,并进行了一项用户研究,以确定选举官员是否会发现差异。我们的用户研究结果表明,我们的志愿选举官员并没有发现所有的差异,这对第二个假设的有效性提出了挑战。基于这些发现,我们进一步提出了EasyVote选票的两种替代设计:(1)与原始EasyVote选票相比,人类可读部分仅以橙色突出显示选民的直接选择,即不突出显示通过选择政党自动分配的选票;(2)第二种选择只包括选民的直接选择,并用橙色突出显示。这两种办法都减少了需要人工比较的次数,因此应增加选举官员发现的不符点的数目。我们在一项在线调查中评估了两种选择,考虑了投票的易验证性和可理解性,即验证人类可读的部分是否包含选民的选择,并了解相应选择的影响(选票的分布)。在线调查的结果显示,这两种替代方案在易于核查和可理解性方面都明显优于原始的EasyVote选票。此外,就投票的可理解性而言,第一种选择明显优于第二种选择,并且在投票的易于核查方面,两种选择之间没有发现显着差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Implementation and evaluation of the EasyVote tallying component and ballot
The German federal constitutional court ruled, in 2009, that elections had to have a public nature. EasyVote, a promising hybrid electronic voting system for conducting elections with complex voting rules and huge ballots, meets this requirement. Two assumptions need to hold, however. The first is that voters will verify the human-readable part of the EasyVote ballot and detect discrepancies. Secondly, that electoral officials will act to verify that the human-readable part of the ballot is identical to the machine-readable part, and that they, too, will detect discrepancies. The first assumption was tested in prior work, so in this paper we examine the viability of the second assumption. We developed an EasyVote tallying component and conducted a user study to determine whether electoral officials would detect discrepancies. The results of our user study show that our volunteer electoral officials did not detect all of the differences, which challenges the validity of the second assumption. Based on these findings we proceeded to propose two alternative designs of the EasyVote ballot: (1) In contrast to the original EasyVote ballot, the human-readable part highlights only the voter's direct selections in orange, i.e. votes that are automatically distributed by selecting a party are not highlighted; (2) The second alternative includes only the voter's direct selections and highlights them in orange. Both alternatives reduce the number of required manual comparisons and should consequently increase the number of discrepancies detected by election officials. We evaluated both alternatives in an online survey with respect to ease of verification and understandability of the cast vote, i.e. verifying that the human-readable part contained the voter's selections and understanding the impact (distribution of votes) of the corresponding selections. The results of the online survey show that both alternatives are significantly better than the original EasyVote ballot with respect to ease of verification and understandability. Furthermore, the first alternative is significantly better than the second with respect to understandability of the cast vote, and no significant difference was found between the alternatives with respect to ease of verification of the cast vote.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Proving the monotonicity criterion for a plurality vote-counting program as a step towards verified vote-counting The patchwork of internet voting in Canada Verifiable internet voting in Estonia The Council of Europe and e-voting: history and impact of Rec(2004)11 From piloting to roll-out: voting experience and trust in the first full e-election in Argentina
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1