>I heard an interesting Canadian Broadcast article last night - an interview with Prof. of Pyschology Robert St. Clair (St. Clare? Sinclair?) described a double-blind research experiment he performed twice (once w/students, again with random public) contrasting a linear ballot and a butterfly ballot. The latter proved problematic for in both experiments. Specifically, people had problems with the butterfly ballot when indicating a selection other than the first option listed. (I think this was "As It Happens" but I couldn't fine a reference at their web-site.)
>
>I was not an issue of how responsible these people were. And when considering machinery, I suspect most here can can readily recognize (when not politisizing) that in a whole system - the instructions, the sample ballots published in the media, the previous method that people may have become accustomed to, the UI, the input device(s), the tabulation hardware - all parts are factors. It is disingenious to charachterize the accuracy issue as 'people vs. machine'.


Steven, it would be very intesting if Prof. St. Clair were to rerun his experiment with a large instruction board in front of the subjects saying (in large print) "4. Vote every page."

I wonder how many of the subjects would follow the instructions rather than figuring out that in the case of the butterfly ballot they had to ignore that instruction.

There was also a place in the standard instruction book which said to make the punch to the RIGHT of the name.

This is a case where "RTFM" does not apply.

Peter