ElectionGuard in College Park, Maryland

To learn how voters interacted with ElectionGuard, we conducted in-person interviews and collected insight from a post-election survey.

What we learned from exit interviews

Many voters did not immediately realize anything was new in this election. The scanner review screen was the most visible – and positive – feature. Voters found the ability to review their ballot before casting it reassuring, transparent, and useful. Even though it was an extra step in the voting process, it confirmed that the voting system read their ballot as they intended. Voters mentioned this as both a personal benefit and as part of election integrity.

Our other findings centered around how people had or hadn’t come to learn about ElectionGuard. Many people had not heard about this new technology even though they considered themselves well-informed about elections. The most common sources of information were:

• Other people, primarily candidates or neighbors
• Official College Park communications, including newsletters, meetings, web, social media, voter cards, and mail
• Email lists or social media, including the Mayor’s emails, Facebook and other lists

On election day, every voter received a pocket guide about ElectionGuard while waiting in line. But we found that most of the people first found out about the technology when a poll worker explained it to them. The line was often too short for them to read the handout.

Most of the reactions to ElectionGaurd were positive, though there were some concerns.

“This [the Confirmation Code] makes me feel like my vote was counted.”
“It’s great, adds more voter security.”
“It ensures transparency. It’s guarding the election. People complain about votes
not counting. This should boost confidence.”
“I believe in the machines and voting. I’m not real skeptical [so am not sure] that
it’s necessary.”

– Quotes from voters

What we learned from a post-election survey

According to the survey respondents, the most important features of ElectionGuard were that “Each voter can confirm that their ballot was counted” (78%) and “Voters themselves can test that the system is recording votes accurately” (68%).

We also found discrepancies in how people responded to the survey and their actual behavior. ElectionGuard allows you to run a test called “BallotCheck” to confirm your vote was counted. When asked if they did “BallotCheck” 13% of participants said yes. But only 4 respondents reported going to the website to complete the BallotCheck and see if their ballot selections were recorded correctly.

This research was conducted by Whitney Quesenbery, Lynn Baumeister, Misty Crooks, Sean Isamu Johnson, Fernando Sanchez and Tasmin Swanson in November 2023, supporting a trial of ElectionGuard in the College Park, Maryland city elections.

How we conducted exit interviews on election day

• We conducted 263 in-person intercept interviews with a total of 307 people (some were with people who had come to vote together and agreed to talk to us together) during 3 days of voting at 3 locations in College Park with a small team. As voters left the polling place, we asked if they had a few minutes to talk. Interviews took 5-10 minutes, depending on how much the voters had to say.

How we collected insight through a post-election survey

• The final research was a post-election feedback survey which was available online from October 4 – November 30. The survey included both questions about the voting experience and general questions about College Park elections. There were 230 responses from College Park residents. 180 of them reported having voted in the election, with 41 who said they did not vote. Unlike the interviews at the Early and Election Day polling places, the survey included both people who voted in person and with a mail ballot.