A Comparison of the 2008, 2012, 2014, and 2016 Elections
National Federation of the Blind Jernigan Institute
February 2017
Introduction
Following the November 8, 2016 elections, the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) conducted an online survey of blind and visually impaired voters to assess their voting experiences and to compare the results of the 2016 survey to the results of similar surveys conducted following the elections in November 2008, 2012, and 2014.
All of these surveys were conducted with funding from a Help America Vote Act (HAVA) Training/Technical Assistance Grant from the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The 2016 survey was completed using Survey Monkey evaluation software and was available from November 9 through November 29, 2016. A total of 399 blind and visually impaired voters completed the 2016 survey as compared to 427, 537, and 566, participants in 2014, 2012, and 2008, respectively.
The same questions related to voter experience were asked in all four surveys. Participants in the 2012, 2014, and 2016 surveys were recruited in a variety of ways, including posts to the National Federation of the Blind member’s e-mail list and an announcement on the NFB website’s home page.
In 2008, individuals were randomly selected from a list owned by the National Federation of the Blind, contacted, and screened for inclusion in the telephone survey.
In 2016, we also included a separate survey on the use of electronic ballot delivery systems. The total response rate was low, only 17 participants. However, we will report on these results in a separate section of this report.
Results of the 2008, 2012, 2014, and 2016 Blind Voter Surveys
Data from the 2008, 2012, 2014, and 2016 surveys show an increase in the number of blind voters who voted at the polls, as well as an increase in the number of voters who cast their ballots on accessible voting machines. In 2008, 62% of the blind voters surveyed voted at the polls; compared to 84%, 83%, and 87% in 2012, 2014, and 2016, respectively.
In 2016, 92% of the blind voters who voted at the polls requested, or were offered, an accessible voting machine, as compared to 63%, 79%, and 88% in 2008, 2012, and 2014, respectively. The percentage of blind voters surveyed who reported that they were able to cast private and independent ballots increased from 51% in 2008 to 79% in 2016; and the percentage of voters who cast their ballots with assistance decreased form 37% to 17%.
For blind voters who cast their ballots on accessible voting machines, the majority of voters surveyed indicate mixed results, especially when compared with 2008. Only 66% of the blind voters surveyed in 2016 that used an accessible voting machine said that the machine was up and running when they arrived at their polling place; as compared to 87% in 2008, 63% in 2012, and 74% in 2014.
The percentage of voters who used accessible voting machines and reported that poll workers had problems setting up or activating the machines remained high in 2016, at 33%. This compared to 19% in 2008, 29% in 2014, and 33% in 2012. In 2016, 20% of blind voters who cast ballots on accessible machines said that poll workers did not provide them with clear instructions on how to use the machines, an increase from 10% in 2014. However, 54% of respondents said they did not need such instructions.
Sixty-six percent of blind voters were able to cast their ballots on accessible machines with no problems, compared to 87% in 2008, 62% in 2012, and 60% in 2014. Eighty-five percent of blind voters were able to cast their ballots privately and independently in 2016, compared to 86% in 2008, 75% in 2012, and 83% in 2014.
While survey data indicate that voters remained reasonably satisfied with treatment from poll workers, overall improvement in this area appears to be inadequate, especially when compared with the 2008 survey results. The percentage of blind voters surveyed who felt that they were treated with the same dignity as other voters fell from 91% in 2008, to 71% in 2012, 83% in 2014, and 79% in 2016.
In 2008, 85% of blind voters surveyed felt that they were given the same amount of privacy as other voters, as compared to 67%, 75%, and 79% in the 2012, 2014, and 2016 surveys, respectively. Ninety-four percent of blind voters surveyed in 2008 said they did not feel rushed by poll workers, as compared to only 88% in 2016 (86% in 2012 and 93% in 2014).
The percentage of blind voters who felt that poll workers treated them with respect declined from 94% in 2008 to 85% in 2016 (compared to 81% and 91% in 2012 and 2014, respectively).
In 2016, 80% of blind voters surveyed indicated that they were somewhat to very satisfied with their voting experience, as compared to 89% in 2008, 75% in 2012, and 78% in 2014. The percentage of blind voters who were somewhat or very dissatisfied with their voting experience has increased from 11% in 2008 to 17% in 2016 (compared with 19% in 2012 and 15% in 2014).
The percentage of surveyed blind voters who said their voting experience was better than their previous experience rebounded positively. The 2016 percentage was 35%, compared to 21% in 2014 (33% in 2008 and 27% in 2012). However, the percentage of blind voters surveyed who said that their experience was worse than their previous experience remains high at 15%, the same result as in 2012 and 2014 (17% and 15%, respectively).
This compares with only 7% in the 2008 survey results. Finally, the percentage of surveyed blind voters who said they would vote again fell only slightly to 98.3% from 100% of those surveyed in 2014 and from 99.8% in 2008, and 98.7% in 2012.
Blind and visually impaired voters who participated in the 2016 survey were asked what would improve their voting experience. Of the 263 voters who responded to this question, 53 (20%) said their voting experiences did not need to be improved.
Thirteen percent of the responses said that poll workers needed better training on the operation of their accessible voting machines, while 6% of the responses said that poll workers needed better training on how to interact properly with a blind voter.
The need to correct machine breakdowns and malfunctions was noted in 9% of responses, while ability to speed up audio and improve audio quality was noted in 8% of responses. Five percent of responses noted that enhanced privacy would be helpful for those using accessible voting machines.
Also 5% of responses reported that the accessible machine was not set up or activated before their arrival at the polls, causing delays. Three percent suggested that there should be an accessible voting machine at their polling places. Three percent also supported use of accessible online voting systems and accessible vote-by-mail/absentee voting.
The Electronic Ballot Delivery Survey
Because of the small sample size, only 17 respondents, it is difficult to evaluate the survey results. However, it is clear that the responses we did receive were positive in their comments on their electronic ballot delivery systems.
All but 6% of the responses agreed that their systems were easy to use; and 94% agreed that most people could learn to use their voting systems very quickly. While 24% said that they had at least some difficulty using these systems, 88% said they were sure they would use the same system again, if it was available in future elections.
Eighty percent said they used assistive technology to mark their ballots, and no respondent disagreed with the statement that “I felt confident that my vote was marked correctly with this voting system.” Eighty-seven percent of responses expressed overall satisfaction with using these voting systems.
Conclusion
Data from the blind voter surveys form 2008 through 2016 indicate a positive trend in the number of blind voters who cast their ballots at the polls, and who did so with an accessible voting machine. However, these survey results also indicate an overall decrease in poll workers’ knowledge of how to operate the accessible voting machines.
However, the 2016 survey indicates some improvement in blind voters’ reports that their overall voting experience was better in 2016 than in 2014; although dissatisfaction rates remain high, especially when compared with 2008 data. Accordingly, we remain concerned that failure to improve voter satisfaction may eventually impact negatively on the willingness of blind voters to participate in future elections.
Through the information provided by these surveys, state and local election officials and disability rights advocates can work to improve poll worker training and upgrade systems to ensure that blind and visually impaired voters have the same positive voting experience as their sighted peers.
Appendix
Table 1
Comparison of data from 2008, 2012, 2014, and 2016 Blind Voter Surveys
2016
Number of survey participants: 399
Cast their vote at polls: 87%
Cast vote absentee or vote-by-mail: 12%
Offered or requested an accessible voting machine (AVM): 92%
AVM up and running when arrived: 66%
Poll worker had problems activating or setting up the AVM: 33%
Poll worker did not provide clear instructions on operation of AVM: 20%
Had no problem casting their vote on AVM: 66%
Able to vote privately and independently on AVM: 85%
All voters able to cast independent vote: 79%
Cast vote with assistance: 17%
Poll workers treated them with same dignity as other voters: 79%
Given the same privacy as other voters: 79%
Did not feel rushed: 88%
Poll workers treated them with respect: 85%
Somewhat or very satisfied with their voting experience: 80%
Somewhat or very dissatisfied with their voting experience: 17%
Experience was same as previous experience: 43%
Experience was better than previous experience: 35%
Experience was worse than previous experience: 15%
Voting for the first time: 10%
Will vote again: 98.3%
2014
Number of survey participants: 427
Cast their vote at polls: 83%
Cast vote absentee or vote-by-mail: 17%
Offered or requested an accessible voting machine (AVM): 88%
AVM up and running when arrived: 74%
Poll worker had problems activating or setting up the AVM: 29%
Poll worker did not provide clear instructions on operation of AVM: 10%
Had no problem casting their vote on AVM: 60%
Able to vote privately and independently on AVM: 83%
All voters able to cast independent vote: 74%
Cast vote with assistance: 21%
Poll workers treated them with same dignity as other voters: 83%
Given the same privacy as other voters: 75%
Did not feel rushed: 93%
Poll workers treated them with respect: 91%
Somewhat or very satisfied with their voting experience: 78%
Somewhat or very dissatisfied with their voting experience: 15%
Experience was same as previous experience: 62%
Experience was better than previous experience: 21%
Experience was worse than previous experience: 15%
Voting for the first time: 4%
Will vote again: 100%
2012
Number of survey participants: 537
Cast their vote at polls: 84%
Cast vote absentee or vote-by-mail: 16%
Offered or requested an accessible voting machine (AVM): 79%
AVM up and running when arrived: 63%
Poll worker had problems activating or setting up the AVM: 33%
Poll worker did not provide clear instructions on operation of AVM: 21%
Had no problem casting their vote on AVM: 62%
Able to vote privately and independently on AVM: 75%
All voters able to cast independent vote: 64%
Cast vote with assistance: 32%
Poll workers treated them with same dignity as other voters: 71%
Given the same privacy as other voters: 67%
Did not feel rushed: 86%
Poll workers treated them with respect: 81%
Somewhat or very satisfied with their voting experience: 75%
Somewhat or very dissatisfied with their voting experience: 19%
Experience was same as previous experience: 51%
Experience was better than previous experience: 27%
Experience was worse than previous experience: 17%
Voting for the first time: 6%
Will vote again: 98.7%
2008
Number of survey participants: 566
Cast their vote at polls: 62%
Cast vote absentee or vote-by-mail: 38%
Offered or requested an accessible voting machine (AVM): 63%
AVM up and running when arrived: 87%
Poll worker had problems activating or setting up the AVM: 19%
Poll worker did not provide clear instructions on operation of AVM: 16%
Had no problem casting their vote on AVM: 87%
Able to vote privately and independently on AVM: 86%
All voters able to cast independent vote: 51%
Cast vote with assistance: 37%
Poll workers treated them with same dignity as other voters: 91%
Given the same privacy as other voters: 85%
Did not feel rushed: 94%
Poll workers treated them with respect: 94%
Somewhat or very satisfied with their voting experience: 89%
Somewhat or very dissatisfied with their voting experience: 11%
Experience was same as previous experience: 60%
Experience was better than previous experience: 33%
Experience was worse than previous experience: 11%
Voting for the first time: 6%
Will vote again: 99.8%
Table 2
Responses to Q21: What would have improved your voting experience?
Nothing: 53 respondents (20%)
Better poll worker training on Operation of AVM: 34 respondents (13%)
AVM did not work properly : 24 respondents (9%)
Ability to speed up audio/better audio quality: 21 respondents (8%)
Better poll worker training on how to interact with blind voters: 18 respondents (6%)
Better privacy for AVM users: 14 respondents (5%)
AVM not set up before arrival: 13 respondents (5%)
Accessible online voting: 8 respondents (3%)
Making vote-by-mail/absentee system more accessible: 7 respondents (3%)
Having AVM in my polling place as a voting option: 7 respondents (3%)