Voter-centered design: Toward a voter decision support system

ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction

Volumn 12, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 263-292

  Robertson, Scott P ^a,b  

^a DREXEL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Drexel University   (United States)

Author keywords

Digital government; Electronic voting; Social filtering; Voter support system

Indexed keywords

DIGITAL GOVERNMENTS; ELECTRONIC VOTING; SOCIAL FILTERING; VOTER SUPPORT SYSTEMS;

DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS; ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT; INFORMATION MANAGEMENT; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; PRODUCT DESIGN;

VOTING MACHINES;

EID: 33745120483     PISSN: 10730516     EISSN: 10730516     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1145/1067860.1067866     Document Type: Review

References (76)

1. ACKERMAN, M. 2001. The intellectual challenge of CSCW: The gap between social requirements and technical feasibility. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 15, 2-3, 181-205.
2. ALDRICH, J. 1993. Rational choice and turnout. Amer. J. Polit. Science 37, 246-278.
3. ALVAREZ, R. M. 1997. Information and Elections. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI.
4. ALVAREZ, R. M. AND HALL, T. E. 2004. Point, Click, and Vote. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC.
5. BEDERSON, B., LEE, B., SHERMAN, R., HERRNSON, P., AND NIEMI, R. 2003. Electronic voting system usability issues. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, NY, 145-152.
6. BEYER, H. AND HOLTZBLATT, K. 1995. Apprenticing with the customer: A collaborative approach to requirements definition. Comm. ACM 38, 5 (May), 45-52.
7. BEYER, H. AND HOLTZBLATT, K. 1998. Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA.
8. BIMBER, B. 2001. Information and political engagement in America: The search for effects of information technology at the individual level. Polit. Resear. Quart. 54, 1, 53-67.
9. BØDKER, S. 1989. A human activity approach to user interfaces. Hum.-Comput. Interne, 4, 171-195.
10. BØDKER, S. 1991. Through the Interface: A Human Activity Approach to User Interface Design. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
11. CADIZ, J. AND GUPTA, A. 2001. Privacy interfaces for collaboration. Microsoft Resear. Rep. MSR-TR-2001-82 (Sept.) Available at http://www.research. microsoft.com/research/coet/Privacy/TRs/01-82.pdf.
12. CALTECH/MIT VOTING TECHNOLOGY PROJECT. 2001. Voting - what is, what could be. (July) California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA. Available at http://www.vote.caltech.edu/Reports/2001report.html.
13. CAMPBELL, A., CONVERSE, P., MILLER, W., AND STOKES, D. 1960. The American Voter. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
14. CARROLL, J. M. AND ROSSON, M. B. 1998. Getting around the task-artifact cycle: How to make claims and design my scenario. ACM Trans. Inform. Syst. (TOIS), 10, 2 (April), 181-212.
15. CARROLL, J. M., ROSSON, M. B., CHIN, G., AND KOENEMANN, J. 1998. Requirements development in scenario-based design. IEEE Trans. Softw. Engi. 24, 12 (Dec.), 1156-1170.
16. CHOO, C. W., DETLOR, B., AND TURNBULL, D. 1998. A behavioral model of information seeking on the Web: Preliminary results of a study of how managers and IT specialists use the web. In Proceedings of the 61st ASIS Annual Meeting, Vol. 35. Preston, C. M. Ed. Information Today, Medford, NJ, 290-302.
17. CHOO, C. W., DETLOR, B., AND TURNBULL, D. 2000. Information seeking on the Web: An integrated model of browsing and searching. First Monday 5, 2 (Feb.) Available at http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_2/choo/.
18. COMPAINE, B. 2001. The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
19. COOK, T., CRINGLER, A., AND JUST, M. 1995. Considering the candidates. The Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
20. CROTTY, W. AND JACOBSON, G. 1980. American Parties in Decline. Little, Brown & Company, Boston, MA.
21. CSAE. 1999. Final Post Election Report. (Feb.), 2. Committee for the Study of the American Electorate. George Washington University, Washington, DC. Availabel at http://www.gspm.org/csae/cgans5.html.
22. DAVIS, R. Ed. 1994. Politics and the Media. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
23. DENNIS, J. 1991. The study of electoral behavior. In Crotty, W. Ed. Political science: Looking to the Future, Vol. III: Political Behavior. Northwestern University Press, Evanston, IL, 51-89.
24. DOPPELT, J. AND SHEARER, E. 1999. Nonvoters: America's No-Shows. Sage Press, Thousand Oaks, CA.
25. ENELOW, J. AND HINICH, M. 1984. The Spatial Theory of Voting. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
26. ENTMAN, R. 1989. Democracy Without Citizens. Oxford University Press, NY.
27. FARQUHARSON, R. 1969. Theory of Voting. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
28. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION. 1990. Voting Systems Standards: Performance and Test Standards for Punch Card, Marksense, and Direct Recording Electronic Voting. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
29. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION. 2003. Usability Testing of Voting Systems. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, Available at http://www.fec.gov/pdf/ usability_guides/usability.pdf.
30. Fox, S. AND RAINE, L. 2002. Vital decisions: How Internet users decide what information to trust when they or their loved ones are sick. Pew Internet & American Life Project Report (May). Available at http://www.pewinternet. org/reports/pdfs/PIP_Vital_Decisions_May2002.pdf.
31. GERBER, A. AND GREEN, D. 1999. Does canvassing increase voter turnout?: A field experiment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 96, 19, 10939-10942.
32. GODEFROID, P., HERBSLEB, J., JAGADEESAN, L., AND Li, D. 2000. Ensuring privacy in presence awareness systems: An automated verification approach. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW'00) (Dec.) Philadelphia, PA, 59-68.
33. HASTIE, R. AND PENNINGTON, N. 1989. Notes on the distinction between memory-based and on-line judgements. In Bassili, J. N. Ed. On-line Cognition in Person Perception. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
34. HORRIGAN, J. AND RAINIE, L. 2002. Counting on the Internet. Pew Internet and American Life Project. (Dec.). Available at http://www.pewinternet.org/ reports/pdfs/PIP_Expectations.pdf.
35. HUDSON, S. AND SMITH, I. 1996. Techniques for addressing fundamental privacy and disruption tradeoffs in awareness support systems. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW'96).
36. INTERNET POLICY INSTITUTE. 2001. Report of the National Workshop on Internet Voting: Issues and Research Agenda. (March) Available at http://www.netvoting.org/Resources/InternetVotingReport.pdf.
37. JUSTICE, H. 2003. Howard Dean's Internet push: Where will it lead? The New York Times. (Nov. 2).
38. KELLEY, S. AND MIRER, T. 1974. The simple act of voting. The Amer. Polit. Science Rev. 68, 572-591.
39. LARSON, L. AND RAINE, L. 2002. The Rise of the e-citizen: How people use government agencies' web sites. Pew Internet & American Life Project Report (April). Available at http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/pdfs/ PIP_Govt_Website_Rpt.pdf.
40. LAU, T., ETZIONI, O., AND WELD, D. 1999. Privacy interfaces for information management. Comm. ACM 42, 10 (Oct.).
41. LAU, R. AND REDLAWSK, D. 2001a. An experimental study of information search, memory, and decision making during a political campaign. In Kuklinski, J. Ed. Citizens and Politics: Perspectives from Political Psychology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
42. LAU, R. AND REDLAWSK, D. 2001b. Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. Amer. J. Polit. Science, 45 (Oct.), 951-971.
43. LEIGHLEY, J. 1996. Group membership and the mobilization of political participation. J. Polit. 58, 447-463.
44. LEIGHLEY, J. E. AND NAGLER, J. 1992. Individual and systemic influences on turnout: Who votes? J. Polit. 54, 718-40.
45. LESSIG, L. 2003. The new road to the White House: How grassroots blogs are transforming presidential politics. Wired Magazine (Nov.).
46. LEWIS, P., MCCRACKEN, C., AND HUNT, R. 1994. Politics: Who cares? Amer. Demograph. 16, 10, 20-26.
47. LODGE, M., MCGRAW, K., AND STROH, P. 1989. An impression-driven model of candidate evaluation. Amer. Polit. Science Rev. 83, 2, 399-419.
48. LODGE, M., STEENBERGEN, M., AND BRAU, S. 1995. The responsive voter: Campaign information and the dynamics of candidate evaluation. Amer. Polit. Science Rev. 89, 2, 309-326.
49. LODGE, M., TABER, C., AND GALONSKY, C. 1999. The political consequences of motivated reasoning: Partisan bias in information processing. The Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, CA.
50. LORD, C., Ross, L., AND LEPPER, M. 1979. Biased assiminlation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently condidered evidence. J. Person. Social Psych. 37, 2098-2109.
51. MADDEN, M. 2003. America's online pursuits: The changing picture of who's online and what they do. Pew Internet & American Life Project Report (Dec.). Available at http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=106.
52. MARCHIONINI, G. M. 1995. Information Seeking in Electronic Environments, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
53. McGRAW, K., LODGE, M., AND STROH, P. 1990. Order effects in the evaluation of political candidates. Polit. Behav. 12, 1, 41-58.
54. NARDI, B. A. 1996. Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models and distributed cognition. In Nardi, B. A. Ed. Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
55. NEUMANN, P. 1993. Security criteria for electronic voting. The 16th National Computer Security Conference, Baltimore, MD (Sept.). Available at http://www.csl.sri.com/users/neumann/ncs93.html.
56. NTIA 2000. Falling through the net III: Toward digital inclusion. National Telecommunications and Information Administration Report (Oct.).
57. PATTERSON, T. 2002. The Vanishing Voter: Public Involvement in an Age of Uncertainty. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY.
58. PAYNE, J. W., BETTMAN, J. R., AND JOHNSON, E. J. 1993. The Adaptive Decision Maker. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
59. PEW RESEARCH CENTER FOR THE PEOPLE AND THE PRESS. 1999. The Internet news audience goes ordinary, (Jan.). Available at http://people-press.org/reports/ display.php3?ReportID=72.
60. RAHN, W., ALDRICH, J. H., AND BORGIDA, E. 1994. Individual and contextual variations in political candidate appraisal. Amer. Polit. Science Rev. 88, 193-199.
61. RAHN, W., ALDRICH, J. H., BORGIDA, E., AND SULLIVAN, J. L. 1990. A social-cognitive model of candidate appraisal. In Ferejohn, J., and Kuklinski, J. Eds. Information and Democratic Processes. University of Illinois Press, Champaign-Urbana, IL, 136-159.
62. REAGLE, J. AND CRANOR, L. 1999. The platform for privacy preferences. Comm. ACM 42, 2 (Feb.), 48-55.
63. REDLAWSK, D. 2001. You must remember this: A test of the on-line model of voting. 2001. J. Polit. 63 (Feb.), 29-58.
64. RICE, A. 2004. Campaigns online: The Profound Impact of the Internet, Blogs, and e-Technologies in Presidential Political Campaigning. Center for the Study of American Government, Johns Hopkins University. Available at http://campaignsonline.org/reports/online.pdf.
65. ROSENSTONE, S. AND HANSEN, J. 1993. Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. MacMillan, New York, NY.
66. ROSSON, M. B. AND CARROLL, J. M. 2002. Usability Engineering: Scenario-Based Development of Human-Computer Interaction. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA.
67. ROTH, S. K. 1998. Disenfranchised by design: Voting systems and the election process. Inform. Design J. 9, 1, 1-8.
68. ROTH, S. K. 2000. Human interfaces with election technology. White paper associated with the Human Factors Research on Voting Machines and Ballot Design: An Exploratory Study Project, University of Maryland. Available at http://www.capc.umd.edu/rpts/MD_EVote_Roth.pdf.
69. RUSSOMANNO, J. 1999. Information seeking and TV network presidential campaign coverage: Mediated vs. "unfiltered' messages in Campaign '96. Feedback, 40, 1, 20-28.
70. SHAMOS, M. 1993. Electronic voting: Evaluating the threat. In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Computers Freedom and Privacy, Burlingame, CA. Available at http://www.cpsr.org/conferences/cfp93/sh amos.html.
71. SOLOP, F. 2001. Digital democracy comes of age: Internet voting and the 2000 Arizona Democratic primary election. Polit. Science Polit. 34, 2, 289-293.
72. SUCHMAN, L. 1994. Do categories have politics? The language/action perspective reconsidered. Comput. Supp. Coop. Work (CSCW), 2, 3, 177-190.
73. TOLBERT, C. AND MCNEAL, R. 2001. Does the Internet increase voter participation in elections? The American Political Science Association, (Aug.), San Francisco, CA.
74. WAYNE, L. 2000. On web, voters reinvent grass-roots activism. New York Times, May 21, Sec. 1, 30. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/library/poutics/ camp/052100wh-websites.html.
75. WEBER, L. AND BERGMAN, J. 2001. Who participates and how? A comparison of citzens 'online' and the mass public. The Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science Association (March).
76. WILSON, T. D. 1997. Information behaviour: An interdisciplinary perspective. Inform. Process. Manag. 33, 4, 551-572.