Field Guides

Projects

Showcase

News

About

Initial observations and insights

about ranked choice voting from a
flash usability test
Background and participants
Our convenience sample was intercepted from people who were in
proximity, were willing to spend 15-20 minutes with us, and who
were positively inclined toward people asking them to help us
learn about ballot design. We had 40 participants in 6 locations.

January 9, 2012
by Dana Chisnell
Tags

Participants voted on the Alameda County demonstration ballot

and the Portland, Maine ballot from 2011. We alternated which
ballot participants got first.
Most participants were active voters:
20 participants said they voted in November 2011.
9 last voted in 2010.
7 last voted in the presidential election in 2008.
1 last voted in 2009.
1 was registered but did not provide data about when he last
voted.
2 were not registered to vote.
The youngest participant was 19. The oldest was 84. The average
age was 43.

Highlights
These participants took voting seriously; many said they prepare
ahead, but some said they dont.
Voters dont read instructions (hence, voter education is probably
not the only answer).Its unclear that reading the instructions for
ranked choice voting would help people vote as they intend,
because the instructions are only about how to mark the ballot,
not about how the votes are counted or what the consequences
of ranking are.In addition, the instructions and explanation of
ranked choice voting are separate from the ballot or too far away
from where and how voters make their ranking decisions.
Design did help in conveying the behavior needed that is, the
Maine ballot was more suggestive of the activity of ranking
choices than the Alameda one was. At least one person used the
Maine ballot as a worksheet, and hoped that by doing so she

ballot design, usability

testing

wasnt invalidating her vote. Heres what happened:

1. Marked the names of people she definitely didnt want to vote
for (referencing the sheet with position statements)
2. Made little 1,2,3 marks for the ones she wanted to rank that way
3. Voted according to her marks
4. Used the instructions on the right hand side rather than the ones
at the top, and was annoyed to later notice that they were
incomplete (missing the write-in part)
Note: This participant voted by mail last time.
The design of the Maine ballot worked so well to suggest ranking,
that participants thought they had to rank all of the candidates.
Several participants marked the Alameda ranked choices down
the columns rather than across the contests. When we asked
them about this, some portion of those voters admitted that they
hadnt realized at first that the rankings went across. We dont
know yet whether participants were more likely to navigate this
way if they voted the other side first.
Testers reported that participants said they were using the lowest
rankings (10-15) on the Maine ballot to register their disapproval
of the candidate.
It was not uncommon for participants to describe their #3 choice
on the Alameda ballot as throw-away.
Many participants marked only 1 or 2 choices.
Some participants remarked that because they didnt understand
how the votes were counted that they didnt trust the system.
Others said that even though they didnt understand exactly how
votes were counted that they trusted that election officials to
count votes appropriately. Well look more closely at how many
people expressed these opinions and whether theres any effect
for age, race, zip code, or voting history.
Very few people accurately described how ranked choice votes
are counted, even in zip codes with high education and socioeconomic levels; people in poorer neighborhoods had even more
difficulty describing how their ranked choices were counted. Most
of these participants had voted in the most recent election. In
Rockridge, most of the participants said theyd voted in the
Oakland mayoral election in 2010. One participant in Oakland was
a congressional aide who was tentative about his understanding
of how ranked choice voting worked.
Many participants, who did describe the counting process
accurately, werent confident in their knowledge.
Many participants theorized that ranked choice operates on a
weighted or point system. A few participants suggested that it
was for breaking ties, but they could not describe how the second
place votes were tallied. It was not uncommon for participants to
talk themselves into corners as they tried to describe how the
counting was done. Most ended with I dont know.
Participants voted counter to their intentions with ranked choice
voting. For example, with the Maine ballot, a few teams reported
that participants chose the worst candidates and ranked them
last. They shouldnt have ranked them at all.
Some participants were put off when they learned how the
counting worked. As one team lead said, participants said ranked
choice voting seemed almost un-democratic to them. Several
people had visceral negative reactions. As soon as he saw the
ballot, one participant remarked, I hate ranked choice voting!
A few participants marked the ballots incorrectly, including

people who said they were active voters though intent was
usually clear.
I plan to do another, follow-up study in which we have people vote
ranked choice. The idea is to show participants a tested description
of how their rankings are counted, and have them say in their own
words how counting works, and then have them vote again with
this new knowledge.
Here are images of the ballots we used. One was a demonstration
ballot provided by Alameda County. The other was two pages of
the Portland, Maine ballot from November 2011.

The Alameda ballot has a regular ballot on the front, and 3 ranked-choice contests
on the back. using columns for voters to mark their top three choices.

The Portland ballot has a regular ballot on the front, and 15 candidates for mayor
in a ranked choice grid-style on the back.

You can read more about flash testing in Wilder than testing in the
wild: usability testing by flash mob

email: hello@civicdesign.org
phone: 410-921-6811

2016 Center for Civic Design

Design by Oxide Design Co.