Interactions - September/October 2009

Editor’s Note: This month’s cover story describes how designers and policy makers alike developed a voting system that is useful, useable, and—above all else—fair. We are pleased to offer not only the following article by Jessica Friedman Hewitt, but also an accompanying sidebar by interactions advisory board member Richard Grefé, who founded AIGA Design for Democracy. Together, these pieces point to a new trend of design in, for, and with government.

Citizen-Centered Design (Slowly)
Revolutionizes the Media and
Experience of U.S. Elections
Jessica Friedman Hewitt

AIGA Design for Democracy | jessica_hewitt@aiga.org

sist as we surely, if slowly, seek to redesign the U.S. election experience.

September + October 2009

interactions

Most designers and usability professionals can readily identify the weaknesses of the infamous Palm Beach ballot from the 2000 election. And most Americans are now well-versed in the foibles of “butterfly ballots.” With national consciousness focused on improving ballot design—and available resources to ensure that it was done properly—why, eight years later, were most 2008 ballots as confusing as ever?

While the days of universally usable ballots may still be decades away, progress has been made. AIGA, the professional association for design, has been working to redesign ballots and elections since 2000 through its initiative Design for Democracy. And the U.S. government, through its Election Assistance Commission (EAC), has taken a major step toward better election design: the EAC accepted Design for Democracy’s national ballot and polling-place design guidelines in July 2007.

In this article, we share the story of the two-year partnership between AIGA and the EAC resulting in concrete election-design tools. And we outline the challenges that per-

The Challenge

The U.S. government responded to the events of the 2000 election by establishing the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002. HAVA requires specifications for voting systems and election information, updates to outmoded punch-card and lever election equipment, and created a new federal agency tasked with election guidance.

This new agency, the EAC, began to execute HAVA requirements in 2003. After ballot design was again an issue in the 2004 presidential election, the EAC prioritized ballot and voter information design reform. Staffed with many former local election officials, the EAC was aware of the challenges and complexity this reform effort would face. For instance:

Decentralized control. • While the EAC is a federal agency and there are federal election requirements, elections are primarily managed at the state and local levels. Each state or county generates its own election solutions in accordance with local legal, technical,

financial, and other constraints.

Outdated state laws. • State election laws often reflect positive historical intentions but consist of detailed requirements that contradict modern information design best practices or are rooted in outdated voting technologies. For example, some states mandate ballot instructions that even native speakers have trouble deciphering, such as, “Vote for not more than one.” Others require that “candidate names be printed in all capital letters,” in contradiction with legibility standards.

Voter diversity. • The U.S. voting population is extremely diverse in primary languages, physical abilities, reading levels, prior voting experience, and depth of knowledge about candidates and issues. This presents obvious challenges for ballot design, such as the need to accommodate multiple languages. But there are also subtle considerations: for instance, non-native English speakers may be resistant to acknowledge that they wish to vote in any other language.