Signed, Sealed, Counted? An Experimental Study of Mail-in Ballot Signature Verification

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Political Research Quarterly
Published
2025-02-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129251319298
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Digital and Cyber Forensics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.25

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Signed, Sealed, Counted? An Experimental Study of Mail-in Ballot Signature Verification

Lydia Brashear Tiede, Adam L. Ozer, Nikolay Marinov, Ryan Kennedy
1 citations
Political Research Quarterly
Digital and Cyber Forensics
3.25
article

Signed, Sealed, Counted? An Experimental Study of Mail-in Ballot Signature Verification

Lydia Brashear Tiede, Adam L. Ozer, Nikolay Marinov, Ryan Kennedy
article en
1 citations

Abstract

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.

Political Research QuarterlyVol. 78(3)
University of Houston (US), The Ohio State University (US), University of Gothenburg (SE)
National Science Foundation
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Digital and Cyber Forensics
3.25
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.