Signed, sealed, counted? An experimental study of mail-in ballot signature verification
By: Kennedy, Ryan Tiede, Lydia Brashear Ozer, Adam and Marinov, Nicolay
.
Material type: 
BookPublisher: Political Research Quarterly Description: 78(3), Sep, 2025: p.819-833.
In:
Political Research QuarterlySummary: Trust in elections is paramount for a democracy and citizens are more likely to cast ballots and support election results when they perceive election processes as trustworthy. However, with the advent of greater dependence on algorithms in election processes, we ask does a reliance on algorithms or a hybrid system for verifying signatures allay or increase citizens’ confidence in using them in elections? To answer this, we use unique survey experiments to first determine respondents’ comfort level in using such systems in elections and then to assess the circumstances which bound this trust. We find that respondents similarly trust automated and non-automated systems, but do not have a clear conception of the confidence threshold, set by policymakers, necessary for rejecting ballots. Additionally, respondents blame election officials more than algorithms when mistakes are made, although this result is contingent on the type of error and respondents’ partisanship. These results have significant implications for confidence in signature verification and other election processes that rely on artificial intelligence.-Reproduced
| Item type | Current location | Call number | Vol info | Status | Date due | Barcode |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Articles
|
Indian Institute of Public Administration | 78(3), Sep, 2025: p.819-833 | Available | AR137892 |
Trust in elections is paramount for a democracy and citizens are more likely to cast ballots and support election results when they perceive election processes as trustworthy. However, with the advent of greater dependence on algorithms in election processes, we ask does a reliance on algorithms or a hybrid system for verifying signatures allay or increase citizens’ confidence in using them in elections? To answer this, we use unique survey experiments to first determine respondents’ comfort level in using such systems in elections and then to assess the circumstances which bound this trust. We find that respondents similarly trust automated and non-automated systems, but do not have a clear conception of the confidence threshold, set by policymakers, necessary for rejecting ballots. Additionally, respondents blame election officials more than algorithms when mistakes are made, although this result is contingent on the type of error and respondents’ partisanship. These results have significant implications for confidence in signature verification and other election processes that rely on artificial intelligence.-Reproduced
There are no comments for this item.