Bad Ballots
On this day of California recall craziness, Slate has posted a fantastic article written by Jessie Scanlon on what is truly wrong with our voting system. The trouble, according to Scanlon, lies not with outdated technology (including the notorious punch card), but with bad graphic design.
...bad ballot design is a nationwide problem that needs to be remedied. The problem starts with the fact that ballots aren't designed by a designer. Instead, county officials oversee their production, and the ballots are put together according to each state's election code. These state election codes generally were drawn up by people who had no idea how to use graphic design to convey information.
Scanlon goes into considerable detail about the alphabetical ordering of the names, the wild variety of type sizes, the poor use of whitespace, and of course, every graphic designer's favorite client pet-peeve (Lord knows how many times I've tried to explain this to people): bold-faced capital letters.
No doubt some official in Sacramento thought that reproducing the candidates' names in bolded capitals would make them stand out. But the treatment actually made the names hard to fit in the confined space of a ballot—and so each letter has had to be condensed (the typographic term for smooshed-together, thin letters). The result makes the names more difficult to read than they would be if they were simply in bold lowercase.
But griping about design is one thing, and providing a solution is another. Thankfully, the article also includes three redesigns of the ballot, including two with additional spot colors to help differentiate information. (Marcia Lausen's sharp, crisp, easy to follow ballot is my favorite).
By tonight, chances are media channels will be full of stories about the outdated punch-card technology, how some districts were employed with clueless assistants, and testimonials from hapless voters unable to follow instructions. Implying, I should add, that it's the stupid voters who are to blame for their own mistakes. But the heart of the issue, which would cost untold millions of dollars less to correct, is right there in black and white.
Comments
i think graphic designers should all start wearing suits and ties. In my past corporate experiences, people respond more positively to a shit talking suit that a rationale sounding jeans and sneaker wearer. Just think how much could be accomplised with a rational graphic designer in a suit. (My solution was to avoid dealing with corporate middlemanagement and it has paid off very well.) Did not Massimo Vignelli, the famous info designer, required his office to wear ties?
Posted by: bruno at October 7, 2003 10:33 AM
I AGREE, CAPS ARE NOT AS EASY TO READ AS lowercase. That using uppercase text is problematic is something that many just don't want to understand.
Bruno makes a good point, dresscode can help when addressing issues with a client. But beware, designers and other creatives must be careful not to look to 'grey' when wearing a suite. A client may also not understand or believe that you're a designer. All this also depends on the type of client and the type of meeting. But what to wear is always worth some consideration.
Posted by: Dutchcelt at October 7, 2003 10:46 AM
Bah, I much preferred your original title "Poor graphic design can change history". Any reason for the change?
Posted by: Simon Willison at October 7, 2003 10:58 AM
Graphic designers should wear Star Trek uniforms! That'd be sweet. How can you say no to a high ranking officer in the Federation?
Posted by: dowingba at October 7, 2003 10:59 AM
I grew up in Buffalo, NY in the early sixties. We always had voting machines ever since I can remember, never punch-card ballots. That was over 40 years ago...
I moved to California 20 years ago and it has always appalled me that simple voting technology was never in use here, even before the Florida debacle.
Posted by: PV at October 7, 2003 11:03 AM
Of course, what is truly wrong with the system is who ends up getting selected
Posted by: AndyC at October 7, 2003 11:34 AM
You know, my complaint with ballot boxes is always that it's listed first name last name. It would seem, communication-wise, that reversing that would be really useful. All political advertising make big deals about the candidates' last names, and it would make sense to match that on ballots - so someone scanning could more quickly pick up the name they're looking for, particularly as the list is still sorted by last name. Also, the last name is more likely to be unique than the first name, I would think, in a given election.
I'd also have to say of the three demo'd on Slate, the Lausen seems the clearest to me too. The other two seem to introduce too many new problems while attempting to solve the original.
Posted by: Stv. at October 7, 2003 4:41 PM
You must read AskTog's "Anatomy of a Disaster" written after the Florida ballot disaster. He writes about a number of the fatally serious ballot design flaws that could have been avoided by a simple usability test.
Posted by: Kingsley at October 8, 2003 8:36 AM
I saw a similar blog entry about this on kottke.org, but I failed to articulate my thoughts well enough to post there, but now I have.
Being 19, this election was my first time to vote, ever. I was able to comprehend the ballot used in Redwood City, CA very easily. It had one column filled with names (not in alphabetical order,) and another column with a broken arrow, and you simply had to take the black marker they provided and connect the arrow together by drawing in the middle portion. It was relatively easy — easier than I imagine the punch cards would be, or even the electronic touch-screen voting systems whereas a slight hand movement can cause your vote to be wrongly cast.
I do however agree with Jessie Scalon when he says the problem with ballots is they are not designed by designers. If I had any say in it, I would design one ballot, graphically identical in all states and counties, and simply rotate the listed names as Scalon suggested. Forget the randomized rotating alphabet. Simplicity is the best option in this case. A to Z.
Posted by: eckola at October 8, 2003 5:37 PM
We just had a provincial election here in Ontario. Know what we do in Canada? We get a piece of paper with the candidates' names on it. We write an X next to the person we want and put the ballot in a box. Easy as pie. No punch cards, no machinery, no hooha. Just a pencil.
And we've never had a Flordia incident.
Posted by: Robot Johnny at October 9, 2003 12:56 AM
Woo. Gotta love America's ability to make things out to be more than they are and complicate things more than needed. Yay for us. =|
Posted by: eckola at October 9, 2003 2:21 PM
