Chisnell on Using Language That Voters Need and Understand

[Image courtesy of cs.byu.edu]

Among everything else she’s got going on, my friend and colleague Dana Chisnell (co-author of the amazing Field Guides for Ensuring Voter Intent) has started sharing an occasional newsletter with ideas about better election design. The last one was so good that I wanted to share it it in its entirety:

Election vocabulary voters don’t get — and what to do about it

Based on what we know about election officials, we’re fairly certain that you spend considerable time listening to and talking with voters. And we’re willing to bet that whether you realize it or not, some of each interaction with voters involves interpreting what they’re saying. I don’t mean from one language to another. I mean, as my friend Ginny Redish says, you’re translating from English into English. Or rather and unfortunately, from voter speak to election speak.

Here’s what I mean. When is the last time you heard a typical voter say they were concerned about under voting down ballot races? Or that they over voted in the gubernatorial contest?

Doesn’t happen, does it? Unless the voter isn’t that typical. The only voters I’ve ever known to talk like this are self-proclaimed election geeks.

Every field has its jargon. The election world is no exception. For talking with colleagues, it’s great — jargon works as a sort of secret handshake that says, This person knows what they’re talking about, they belong here. Election departments that find themselves using jargon in public also find that it causes them more work down the road. In New York State, for example, a tabulator message that declared, “You have over voted” caused enough confusion with voters to invite a lawsuit. In some counties in California, it’s not unusual to have someone staffing the tabulator just to interpret the system messages to voters. In these situations, the voting system vendor is responsible. But jargon creeps in to voter information all the time.

Use short, simple, everyday words
The amazing thing is, when you use simple language as you work, everything gets easier for everyone. Our research and that of others who study people with low literacy and reading disabilities tell us that simplicity rules. The PhDs in your audience are not going to complain when something you put in front of them is simple, plain, and clear. For example:

Use
too many votes or too many choices
you can vote for more people
party-based

Avoid
overvoted
undervoted
nonpartisan

Simplicity and informality win with poll workers, too. In step-by-step instructions, it’s common to use longer, more complex words. But shorter everyday words are easier to skim and read for everyone, especially when you’re trying to follow instructions:

Use
find
help
make sure
message
put
turn on
use

Avoid
identify, or locate
assist
verify, validate, prompt
prompt
incorporate
power on
utilize

(I really hate “utilize.” There is no good reason for this word to exist.)

When you look at your ballot instructions, instructions on forms, checklists, quick references, poll worker manuals — just about everything — ask yourself, Can the reader

• understand what is written?
• follow instructions easily, without making mistakes?
• respond appropriately to the instructions?

If you’re not sure, ask a typical user to read it and tell you what they have questions about — or what they think other people might have trouble understanding.

Simple. Yes?

As always – thanks, Dana!