BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Michael D. Byrne

Michael D. Byrne contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Cryptography and SecurityHuman-Computer Interaction

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Can Voters Detect Errors on Their Printed Ballots? Absolutely

There is still debate on whether voters can detect malicious changes in their printed ballot after making their selections on a Ballot Marking Device (BMD). In this study, we altered votes on a voter's ballot after they had made their selections on a BMD. We then required them to examine their ballots for any changes from the slate they used to vote. Overall accuracy was exceptionally high. Participants saw 1440 total contests, and of those 1440, there were a total of 4 errors, so total accuracy was 99.8%. Participants were able to perform with near-perfect accuracy regardless of ballot length, ballot type, number of altered races, and location of altered races. Detection performance was extremely robust. We conclude that with proper direction and resources, voters can be near-perfect detectors of ballot changes on printed paper ballots after voting with a BMD. This finding has significant implications for the voting community as BMD use continues to grow. Research should now focus on identifying administrative and behavioral methods that will prompt and encourage voters to check their BMD-generated ballots before they drop them in the ballot box.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Voter Verification of BMD Ballots Is a Two-Part Question: Can They? Mostly, They Can. Do They? Mostly, They Don't

The question of whether or not voters actually verify ballots produced by ballot marking devices (BMDs) is presently the subject of some controversy. Recent studies (e.g., Bernhard, et al. 2020) suggest the verification rate is low. What is not clear from previous research is whether this is more a result of voters being unable to do so accurately or whether this is because voters simply choose not to attempt verification in the first place. In order to understand this problem, we conducted an experiment in which 108 participants participated in a mock election where the BMD displayed the voters' true choices, but then changed a subset of those choices on the printed ballot. The design of the printed ballot, the length of the ballot, the number of changes that were made to the ballot, the location of those changes, and the instructions provided to the voters were manipulated as part of the experiment. Results indicated that of those voters who chose to examine the printed ballot, 76% detected anomalies, indicating that voters can reliably detect errors on their ballot if they will simply review it. This suggests that administrative remedies, rather than attempts to alter fundamental human perceptual capabilities, could be employed to encourage voters to check their ballots, which could prove as an effective countermeasure.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access