Don't get me wrong - some things in the world of advertising aren't meant to be clear (some other concern, perhaps the relative "coolness" of the design, may be deemed more important). But if the goal is to provide a voter (or a reader) with an intuitive interface, the process can't begin with the notion that it isn't "fair" for somebody's name to appear at the end of the ballot all the time or anything else. It should begin with a very simple point: design a clear, easily navigated interface. Then - and only then - should the design be modified to address any concerns about unfairly accentuating certain things.
For example, Scanlon asked a variety of graphic designers to develop a model ballot. One of them features color changes to deliniate different information. Scanlon says this is an "election code no-no." Why? Arguably because someone, sometime, decided that color "just shouldn't" be included in a ballot without any recognition that color can play an exceptionally good role in presenting information.
Anyway, I think the way ballots are designed should be taken out of the hands of the lawyers and put into the hands of people who actually understand how information is disseminated. Sure, concerns of "fairness" would need to be incorporated into the design. But ultimately, if the goal really is to have voters understand what they're looking at, the design is going to be more important than the machine.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)





Article comments
1 - Eric Olsen
Great job, very interesting and obviously important.