1 / 23

Work RERC

Prepared for The Twenty-first Annual Technology & Persons with Disabilities Conference 24 March, 2005 Los Angeles, CA. Work RERC. Disabilities, (E) Voting and Access: A Survey of Voter Satisfaction Paul M.A. Baker, Ph.D., AICP Robert G.B. Roy Nathan W. Moon Michael Williams, Ph.D.

manton
Télécharger la présentation

Work RERC

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Prepared for The Twenty-first Annual Technology & Persons with Disabilities Conference 24 March, 2005 Los Angeles, CA Work RERC Disabilities, (E) Voting and Access: A Survey of Voter Satisfaction Paul M.A. Baker, Ph.D., AICP Robert G.B. Roy Nathan W. Moon Michael Williams, Ph.D. www.catea.gatech.edu The Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access (CATEA) and the Center for Advanced Communications Policy (CACP) Georgia Institute of Technology National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), U.S. Department of Education

  2. 1.0 Introduction: E-voting and Disabilities Study • In a representative democracy “fair,” open and valid elections are critical to inclusive participation • For voters with disabilities (VWD) barriers to voting can arise from inaccessible facilities, limitations of voting technology, and cultural, social, or awareness related factors. • This study surveyed satisfaction with e-voting and considered potential issues, barriers and opportunities for VWD

  3. 2.0 Study Rationale • Explore barriers in the electoral process especially for VWD • Macro-level – issues of access to voting facilities • Micro-level – issues of usability in machine technologies • Meso-level - human factor/process factors such as poll worker understanding of VWD, adjustment of voting machines, machine placement, and management of polls

  4. 3.0 Inclusiveness, Accessibility, and Usability • In the U.S., the voting process since early in the last century has become increasingly inclusive and representative • Issues of usability and access for VWD in terms of the voting context has not been studied in depth • E-voting generally provides increased accuracy, more timely generation of results, and flexibility, within a complex social and behavioral setting

  5. 4.0 Voting and People with Disabilities (1) • People with disabilities, policymakers, advocates, and other groups have significant concerns about the existence of barriers to voting and electoral participation • Schur et al. (2002), argues that people with disabilities are less likely to vote than non-disabled individuals • Voter turnout is more than 20% lower among people with disabilities than the general population • Low voter participation is correlated with the existence of social, economic, educational, physical, and political barriers

  6. 4.0 Voting and People with Disabilities (2) • Low voter turnout in certain social groups with access to the voting place has frequently been blamed on “voter apathy” • The ADA may be insufficient to remove barriers to voting encountered by people with disabilities due to narrow interpretations • Increasing voter turnout among people with disabilities, critical to full participation in democratic processes • While DRE technologies “core accessibility concerns,” technological, human and environmental factors still remain to be addressed

  7. 5.0 Methodology (1) • Survey participants (voters) were recruited from across the US via a wide range of disability rated list-servers • disability advocacy organizations • independent living centers • federally funded projects • Disability Business Technical Assistance Centers • AT Act projects • Solicitations in GA through mass media outlets

  8. 5.0 Methodology (2) Survey consisted of closed and open-ended questions to explore the voter experience in the following areas: • Accessibility of information on issues and candidates to help voters make informed decisions prior to voting • Barriers encountered when voting • Voters’ ability to understand or obtain information on voting machine operation • Satisfaction with the voting process

  9. 5.0 Methodology (3) Online/Telephone Survey conducted October ‘04 - February ‘05 • Using Survey Solutions by Perseus • Data was imported into SPSS for standard statistical summaries of quantitative data analysis • Open-ended question were analyzed by formal content analysis procedures

  10. 6.0 Survey Results • 325 (58%) no disability vs. 238 (42%) PWD • 400 (71%) e-voters vs. 163 (29%) manual • 284 (50.4%) respondents were 35-54 yrs of age

  11. 6.0 Survey Results (continued) 85.6% White 6.0% Black/African American 3.6% Hispanic/ Latino 0.9% Asian

  12. 6.0 Survey Results (continued)

  13. 6.0 Survey Results (continued) • 13 questions related to voter satisfaction with voting • 7 questions suggested a significant difference in VWD experience compared with able-bodied voters, and can be grouped into three categories: • satisfaction with voting experience • satisfaction with polling officials/places • satisfaction with e-voting machine accessibility

  14. 6.0 Survey Results (continued) • Satisfaction with voting experience • VWD 10% less satisfied with the experience; Satisfaction improved by 20% for e-voting VWD • Satisfaction with polling officials/place • VWD were 9%-18% less likely to report satisfaction with polling officials or place; Satisfaction improved from 22%-40% for e-voting VWD • Satisfaction with e-voting machine accessibility • VWD were 7% to 20% less likely to report satisfaction with the equipment than voters without disability

  15. 6.0 Survey Results (continued) • 347 instances of barriers reported • 71 (20.5%) size or display of the text • 109 (31.4%) placement or design of controls • 167 (48.1%) audio/sound output • VWD overall experienced more problems • 209 (60.2%) instances vs. 138 (38.9%) instances • 16% of all participants felt lack of privacy was a key concern in using e-voting machines

  16. 6.0 Survey Results (continued) • 79% of respondents felt that "Using an electronic voting machine improved my voting experience." No statistical difference between the two groups. • 81% of VWD's felt "I believe electronic voting machines will encourage more VWD's to vote." No statistical difference between VWD and people without disabilities.

  17. 6.0 Survey Results (continued) Problems with the voting process (Open-ended n=253) • 12% of respondents expressed complaints concerning use of a voting device that tended to impact all users • 97% of these respondents were electronic voters • 50% were VWD and • 45% were VWD using electronic voting • 9% of the respondents reported complaints regarding poll worker activity that impacted all voters with • 86% of these having used electronic voting • 36% VWD, and • 29% VWD having used electronic voting machines

  18. 6.0 Survey Results (continued) • 5% reported complaints regarding poll workers that somehow impacts accessibility of voting; • 65%of these respondents were electronic voters • 80% were VWD and • 33% were VWD using electronic voting • 6% reported complaints with voting devices that primarily impacted VWD; • 77%of these respondents were electronic voters • 77% were VWD and • 66% were VWD using electronic voting

  19. 6.0 Survey Results (continued) • VWD less likely (16% vs. 7%) to believe that: "It was clear that the polling officials understood how to operate the electronic voting machines."

  20. 7.0 Conclusions • While this pilot study on e-voting is not statistically generalizable, as noted, preliminary findings reveal some interesting differences between VWD and able-bodied voters • VWD were somewhat less satisfied with the voting process than able bodied voters. E-voting altered this condition, yet was not a total panacea • The actual voting itself was somewhat improved by the accessibility features of the e-voting machines

  21. 7.0 Conclusions • Findings suggest that aspects of the voting process still present barriers: • access to voting facilities (macro level barriers) • fine-tuning machine technologies (micro-level barriers) • interrelated barriers related to voting process (meso-level) represent a policy problem area that can be addressed once well understood • As changes/improvements to the voting process take place the remaining problems become more complex to resolve • The mitigation of physical access and voting machine barriers shift the necessary changes from environmental/technological factors to process or interpersonal ones -- the “Easy ones” have been made

  22. 7.0 Conclusions • Focus of policy change initiatives needs to be on : • encouraging continued technological R&D to fine-tune machine efficacy, and accessibility features; • improvement of the voting process (human as well as environmental factors) in which voting machines operate • the E-voting study helps to provide context for ongoing analyses of e-voting policies and practices, and provide input toward the development of policy to mitigate barriers to voting by people with disabilities

  23. Wish to acknowledge the support of Dennis Folds, Ph.D. and Carl Blunt of the Georgia Tech Research Institute Supported by grant #H133A000405 from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), U.S. Department of Education

More Related