Government: a better ballot box?
IEEE Spectrum - The amazing vanishing transistor act
Voting and technology: who gets to count your vote?
Communications of the ACM - Program compaction
Small vote manipulations can swing elections
Communications of the ACM - Voting systems
The Real Risk of Digital Voting?
Computer
Early Appraisals of Electronic Voting
Social Science Computer Review
Trust, Identity, and the Effects of Voting Technologies on Voting Behavior
Social Science Computer Review
A comparison of usability between voting methods
EVT'06 Proceedings of the USENIX/Accurate Electronic Voting Technology Workshop 2006 on Electronic Voting Technology Workshop
The importance of usability testing of voting systems
EVT'06 Proceedings of the USENIX/Accurate Electronic Voting Technology Workshop 2006 on Electronic Voting Technology Workshop
Acceptance of voting technology: between confidence and trust
iTrust'06 Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Trust Management
Computerized voting machines: a view from the trenches
ESORICS'05 Proceedings of the 10th European conference on Research in Computer Security
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
Despite their unmistakable advantages, the use of voting machines in elections is a topic of vivid debates. This article focuses on the experiences of voters using three types of voting equipment: (a) a paper ballot, (b) a voting machine, and (c) a voting machine with paper audit trail. An independent-groups experiment was conducted in which voters had to cast a vote for a donation to a charity organization and afterwards filled out a questionnaire about their voting experiences. The paper ballot was considered to be the most anonymous way of voting, especially by female voters. The voting machine (with or without paper trail), on the other hand, was considered to be more user-friendly than the paper ballot and gave the voters more confidence that their votes would actually be processed correctly. No differences were found between the voting machine with and without paper audit trail.