Democracy Dollars

Introduction

Fair elections

My team collaborated with the Public Ethics Commission of the City of Oakland to prototype and test the experience for a new public campaign finance program.

We tested and iterated our prototype with a diverse set of Oakland residents. The goal was to validate ideas and designs before spending time, effort, and money on developing them. Findings were passed along to the implementation team.

Every resident can have influence

Background

In November 2022, voters passed Measure W, the Oakland Fair Elections Act to establish the Democracy Dollars Program. Measure W makes public funds (aka Democracy Dollars) available for residents to pledge to candidates. This Measure intends to:

  1. Build fair elections in the City of Oakland.

  2. Expand public participation in the local democratic process.

  3. Empower all Oakland residents with an opportunity to engage meaningfully in the campaign process.

  4. Prevent corruption and its appearance.

Candidates' reliance on large contributions from a limited number of powerful contributors creates the opportunity for and appearance of corruption in City government. It also gives incumbents an advantage over potential challengers who lack existing networks of wealthy contributors. This undermines the integrity of the governmental process and participation in campaigns by Oakland residents.


The goal is to level the playing field for campaign finance and encourage candidates to engage with all residents of Oakland - not just wealthy donors. 

Vague recollection: reintroducing a new concept

The Challenge

Although voters passed measure W recently in 2022, most of our user testing participants did not remember it. Our goal for the project was to make Oakland residents comfortable and excited about this new program. The original idea was tap a button, and add a campaign donation to the cart. 


We wanted to create a strong foundation that embraced this exciting concept and made it work for a diverse user base.


High level goals were:

  1. Make it easy for everyone to donate, everywhere.

  2. Give residents full control over their donations.

  3. Create a platform for deeper engagement.

“Potential users may have heard about the program but we have to assume that everyone will need a refresher.”

I kept straightforward, explanatory design in mind when drafting the physical mailer that residents would get at the beginning of the election year. Language turned out to be the most important part of the design. Feedback from user testing told us if our wording had hit the mark. Above image depicts the inside of the mailer, shown in unfolded state.

My role

I led the design team for the Democracy Dollars experience between January and November 2024, and was the primary designer on the physical mailer. I co-lead the team-at-large with the product manager. In addition to two other product designers, we worked alongside a content designer and a researcher. Additional oversight and input was provided by the program manager, the  director and the team at the Public Ethics Commission of the City of Oakland.


We handed off initial research and prototypes in the fall of 2024 for implementation in the 2026 election cycle.

What I did

  1. Design lead

  2. Physical mailer design

  3. Research

  4. User testing

Results

  1. 86% of users say the design is “simple”, “beautiful” or “clear.”

  2. A reintroduction to the program with a nudge to use the website.

  3. Validated ideas and designs before spending time, effort, and money on developing them.

  4. Identified problems and iterated solutions before they impact the budget.

Kickoff

The precedent

Learning from Seattle’s Democracy Vouchers

Seattle was the first city in the United States to launch this type of public campaign financing program. We wanted to learn what they started with, where they have taken it, and where we need to go. Some of the findings were:

  1. Digital participation is only 20%.

  2. The digital system had issues scaling to meet initial rush of participants.

  3. Signature verification to authenticate voters is laborious.

  4. Limited capability for candidates to redeem supporters’ vouchers.


We had a few meetings to get background and a run-through of their system. We saw how their program worked - how people registered for the program, how they got their vouchers, and how they “spent” them.


We also got got a feel for what was important to Seattle participants so we could understand how that might differ from Oakland participants.

User stories

While still in discovery phase the team brainstormed a number of user stories to imagine various scenarios that residents might experience while spending their Democracy Dollars.

Here’s how convenient it would be to be able to donate your Democracy Dollars while you are out at a campaign fundraiser.


We see a resident learning about the program at a campaign rally and being able to assign Democracy Dollars on the spot.

The Design

Our approach

Building on our initial discovery research, we looked at how the process would unfold for a resident. This led to developing key tenets for wireframes and prototypes.

Design paradigms

  • Mobile first for greater access.

  • Simple language and icons.

  • Familiar design patterns.

  • Test with a diverse set of residents.

  • Rapid iteration.

First impressions

To get a full picture of how residents would be interacting with the program, I designed a printed mailer that would be the first thing sent to eligible voters.


The physical mailer would have QR codes and numerous mentions of web addresses associated with the process. It should be easy to find the program online.

We printed a set of these to begin our user testing and get an idea of how residents would proceed. Above image is of the back side of a Democracy Dollar and the address pane.

Looking at the flows for the digital process, we found out where the web version would reside in the City of Oakland website. We designed within the City’s style guide and webpage structure. The digital prototyping process was split into two parts, authentication and spending.

Going mobile

Authentication

Beyond the landing page, there is an authentication process. We assumed the City of Oakland can plug an API into voter registration data for ID verification. Both Alameda County and the CA Secretary of State offer tools to check voter status with CA Driver’s License and last four digits of SSN. We built verification requesting the same information required to query about voter registration status. 

ID verification using the state or county’s online voter roll.

Spending - go for what you know

We wanted spending your dollars to feel familiar. Most people have shopped online, so we used a shopping cart style experience to spend your Democracy Dollars. We used 2022 election information to estimate a realistic scale for the number of races and candidates per race.

Integrate accordion

The mobile design had to support a large number of candidates in numerous races. Participants can donate to candidates in any city race, not just their own districts, so the interface was designed to display all options. In light of the mobile first design ethos we wanted to make information on a mobile screen as succinct as possible. We used accordion menus to group races by location within Oakland and we also included a search field. This allowed for an overview that did not require a lot of scrolling on the device.

Just prior to work on this platform, I had collaborated with another designer on developing a digital candidate guide as a way to inform voters and increase turnout. With the candidate guide we learned that scrolling through endless lists of candidates did not make for a good user experience. We built Democracy Dollars to be consistent with the design successes of the guide.

Fieldwork

Research insights

We did three rounds of qualitative testing with ten users. Ten was well suited to what we were looking for, for these reasons:

  • Our goal was to figure out what doesn’t work, fix it, and then move on.

  • These studies are meant to identify usability problems.

  • Any issue that somebody encounters is a valid one worth fixing.

We tested in three locations: Oakland City Hall, The Oakland Public Library Lakeview Branch, and The Black August Block Party to see how context affected usability.

Reflecting Oakland

Our test participants volunteered information about ethnicity and race, age, how long they have lived in Oakland and how they access the internet.

One of four participant demographics that we requested, race and ethnicity.

As a whole, Oakland’s demographic data (shown below) can vary over time, but for comparison here are some approximate population percentages for key categories based on recent data:

  • Black or African American - around 20%

  • White - around 30%

  • Asian and Pacific Islander (API) - around 15%

  • Hispanic or Latino - around 25%

  • Two or More Races (Multiple) - around 5%

  • Other - around 5%

In our reported data we missed the Hispanic/Latino category entirely. Other than that we got a good distribution. Another round of testing in the right place would be helpful and we have plans to test in other languages.

Initial reactions

When our users first understood what the program was about, this is what we heard from them:

Spam or scam

Many users started in a defensive mindset due to the prevalence of spam / junk mail / fraud around election-related materials. Sharing personal information was a major friction point, especially if proper trust has not been established. There was a suspicion about the program, for some users even “from the government” doesn’t mean it’s trustworthy.

  • General skepticism, too good to be true.

  • Fear of scams.

  • Too many (people, services, organizations) are asking for something too often.

  • With all the budget issues that Oakland perennially faces, how is this program funded?

Building trust

How did this impact the design? 

  1. Wording matters. When asking for personal information in early iterations, many users refused to continue during digital enrollment / account creation.  We adapted by letting people know that accounts already exist for registered voters and that we are accessing those accounts.

  2. We considered “flipping the script”, placing ID verification after donation assignment. This might get people involved in assigning dollars and then would be more inclined to enter personal information. However, we opted against this to ensure that donations were drawn from current, unassigned accounts.

  3. Some users requested clearer language to explain what the program is - “The City of Oakland is giving you $100 to give to a candidate of your choice”. We continually evolved how we phrased our descriptions and instructions.

Some find sharing this personally identifying information uncomfortable, we iterated on the concept and approached the request by stating that we were matching an existing account for registered voters. With this approach every voter has an existing account and they are simply logging in.

Contenders

Another learning from our testing was that most people wanted to look up candidates to find out more about them from within the site. This was a strong argument for incorporating a candidate guide.


Including a guide that would build upon my previous candidate guide design was a no brainer. The guide would be incorporated into the Democracy Dollars platform. There would be strict parameters for submitted candidate content, including formatting, word counts and deadlines. There are still questions around establishing submittal deadlines and publishing times that would have to be addressed to insure equal opportunity for all candidates.

It would be made clear to candidates how important it is to participate in the guide. If a candidate did not participate, their chance of winning the race would be significantly impacted. 

Positive results and much to pass along

The Impact

The process of iterating on our designs as we received feedback from testing had a quantifiable effect on usability. From our first testing session in City Hall through our final session at the Black August Block Party we saw a much smoother user experience.

  • Completion of tasks without assistance increased by 34%.

  • Questions about the veracity of the program decreased by 20%.

  • Positive impression of the program increased by 17%.


And finally, we had a host of design learnings to share with the implementation team:

  • Prioritize Mobile.

  • Design straightforward and self-explanatory flows.

  • Use existing design patterns like the shopping cart. These patterns are intuitive, fast, easy and need no instruction. In fact, all users navigated to and completed selections in a minute or less.

  • Consider that users are approaching the Democracy Dollars concept with suspicion. 

  • Test language and iterate.

  • Prioritize privacy and sensitivity when requesting personal information.

  • Reframe authentication as account access if possible.

  • Refine for clarity and usability. Increase iconography and simplify language.

  • Incorporate a candidate guide.

  • Minimize scrolling, include both a search field and expandable lists to find candidates and races.

Up