Upload
kanoa
View
20
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
UOCAVA Voting in Four States A Study of Election Administration. Overview of the Project. 3 Components: Qualitative and Quantitative Case Studies of 4 States Survey of UOCAVA voters Conference with Election Administrators, technology and election experts, etc. Sample Selection. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
UOCAVA Voting in Four StatesA Study of Election Administration
Overview of the Project
3 Components: Qualitative and Quantitative
Case Studies of 4 States
Survey of UOCAVA voters
Conference with Election Administrators, technology and election experts, etc.
Sample Selection
Organized States by Transmission method Some emailing of voted ballots Some emailing of blank ballots or IVAS tool 2 Some emailing of FPCA but not ballots Fax but no email
Fax of voted ballots Fax of blank ballots Fax of FPCA for registration and ballot request Fax of FPCA for ballot request
Postal delivery only
More Sample Selection
2 States selected from each of the top categories
Additional criteria considered: Region Size of UOCAVA population Variety of methods utilized by sample state for
within-state comparison of different methods Initiation of and participation in pilot projects or
FVAP programs
Research States and JurisdictionsKey Features
South Carolina: email and fax voted ballots – state-wide; south-eastern state; VOI ‘00, IVAS ‘04; SERVE ’04; large UOCAVA population
Montana: email and fax of voted ballots – some jurisdictions; north-western state; IVAS ‘04; IVAS ‘06 T2; small UOCAVA population
Florida: email blank and fax voted ballots; southern state; VOI ‘00, SERVE ’04; pilot projects, large UOCAVA population
Illinois: fax of FPCA for ballot request; IVAS ’06 T1 + email blank ballots in 2 jurisdictions; mid-western state; medium UOCAVA pop.
Findings
Enthusiasm about facilitating UOCAVA voting Especially about military serving overseas
Limited resources and technical infrastructure Extreme variation on technology within states
Lack of knowledge about resources and procedures
2 cycle registration requirement: bad for administrators – good or bad for voters?
Findings Continued
Concern about authentication of voters Varying perspectives on best methods
Little variation in general administration of UOCAVA voting found based on selection criteria for states – differences wash out as population size increases
Differences found based on relationship of state to local jurisdictions
Lots of innovative ideas on local level Permission to conduct pilot projects desired
More Findings
No mechanisms to share or promote innovative procedures among locals
Lack of communication between LEOs and VAOs in many jurisdictions
USPS difficulties Voters uninformed about electronic
transmission possibilities (few requests) LEOs cautious about encouraging wide-
spread use due to ballot remaking issue etc.
Conclusion and Recommendations
LEOs hindered by obstacles (legal, resources, technology infrastructure, awareness of voters, knowledge of agencies)
Changes needed: Overall increase in communication Laws that allow more discretion Mechanism to share practices Improve technology
Security and authentication assurances Upgrade/standardize local systems
XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX