On: To Build a Better Ballot

[grzm]

I'm still thinking of how to explain score voting to an illiterate voter. It requires a level of sophistication that is orders of magnitude more involved than a simple checkbox next to a candidate.

You've made a very important point. In tech we often talk about UX with apps and sometimes with consumer products, but not enough in my opinion in areas such as voting and paperwork.

[ClayShentrup → grzm]

In 2006 I did a Score Voting exit poll on unsuspecting voters in _Beaumont, Texas_, and not a single one was confused.

http://scorevoting.net/Beaumont

[sandGorgon → ClayShentrup]

this is for people who cant read or write. they dont know numbers.

In India, such people identify the candidate using a mandatory election symbol (like a lotus, bicycle, etc) and put a checkbox next to them.

[grzm → ClayShentrup]

Thanks for the link! Now I have more to read :)

[lotu → grzm]

I think explaining score voting is pretty easy you just have only 3 categories labeled ️(1) (2) (3) for each candidate and they put a mark on what they think for each one. As an aside I susspect that having more than 3 or 4 catagoreis isn't a good idea and creates false precision that complicates things.

[ClayShentrup → lotu]

http://scorevoting.net/Complexity

[ClayShentrup → lotu]

You want a zero based scale to avoid confusion, preferably with an even number of scores. 0-5 or 0-9 is good.

[sandGorgon → lotu]

is it 1,2,3 or 3,2,1?

you underestimate interface design for a billion people in 20 different languages and in symbols that can be understood by illiterate citizens.

fyi, election symbols (like lotus, bicycle, broom) are mandatory in Indian elections for people who cannot read.

The American concept of voter registration is fairly puzzling.