The Trust in Voting Systems (TVS) Measure

Introduction

Many people do not trust technology or the people who develop and maintain technological systems. Invasiveness is one reason: Some email users view Gmail skeptically, for instance, because software algorithms scan the text of users’ emails to display relevant advertisements. Likewise, many consumers are concerned about Apple’s iPhone because of its FaceID and embedded fingerprint scanner that create the potential for users’ biometric information to be handed over to the NSA (Brundage, 2013). In the voting context, voters and election officials may worry about whether voters perceive invasiveness and, conversely, whether they find the voting process to be transparent. On this latter point, black-box voting systems may record and transmit voter selections without any verification, likely leading voters to wonder whether voting systems are secure, reliable, and accurate (Robertson, 2005).

Such concerns were amplified around the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, when candidates and voting security experts expressed concern about the integrity of elections and voting systems (Cylance Team, 2016; Halderman, 2016; Montanardo & Naylor, 2017; Wallach, 2016, 2017). Companies and product developers making and selling voting systems often reassure buyers and users about the security and specific operations of their systems, yet often little is done to verify these claims with data and physical evidence (Robertson, 2005; Ulanoff, 2016). Now in 2020, as the world combats the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States is grappling with how to vote in its upcoming elections, which includes the November 2020 presidential election. One option that has been proposed is to replace in-person voting with voting-by-mail. However, voter fraud and corruption of mail-in voting methods is of high concern, should they replace access to the polling stations (Korecki & Cadelago, 2020). This summarizes today’s state of affairs in which there is a great range of heterogeneity in people (voters, election stakeholders) and systems (electronic, traditional, mail) interacting to influence voter trust.

Generally, people’s trust in systems is found to influence system use, acceptance, and reliance (Acemyan & Kortum, 2012). For instance, consumers who do not trust their email applications or cell phones might choose to limit the information given and received from them, change how they otherwise interact with them, or avoid using them altogether. Unlike consumer products, however, U.S. voters have no choice on election day but to use—or not use—the system provided at their assigned polling station (Acemyan & Kortum, 2015, 2016). If voters do not find voting systems to be trustworthy, they may decide to abstain from voting, or fail to express their beliefs freely through their ballot selection(s) (Ansper, Heiberg, Lipmaa, Overland, Van Laenen, 2009; Oostveen & van den Besselaar, 2004). At a broader level, they may distrust the overall election outcome(s) or decide to avoid voting in the future (Acemyan & Kortum, 2012).

Furthermore, once voter trust in a voting system is lost, it is difficult to regain (Ansper et al. 2009; Loeber 2008). Even if an improved voting system is established in response to voters’ mistrust, their previous negative system impressions may prevent them from using it (Ansper et al.). Thus, it is essential to democratic elections that voters always have and maintain a fundamental level of trust in voting systems, enough so that they will participate, uninhibitedly express their beliefs, and have confidence in the final tallies. This involves simultaneously preventing adverse human-computer interactions and user perceptions, while promoting positive ones.