@inproceedings{rawte-etal-2025-voters,
title = "Do Voters Get the Information They Want? Understanding Authentic Voter {FAQ}s in the {US} and How to Improve for Informed Electoral Participation",
author = "Rawte, Vipula and
Scott, Deja N and
Kumar, Gaurav and
Juneja, Aishneet and
Yaddanapalli, Bharat Sowrya and
Srivastava, Biplav",
editor = "Cao, Trista and
Das, Anubrata and
Kumarage, Tharindu and
Wan, Yixin and
Krishna, Satyapriya and
Mehrabi, Ninareh and
Dhamala, Jwala and
Ramakrishna, Anil and
Galystan, Aram and
Kumar, Anoop and
Gupta, Rahul and
Chang, Kai-Wei",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Trustworthy NLP (TrustNLP 2025)",
month = may,
year = "2025",
address = "Albuquerque, New Mexico",
publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2025.trustnlp-main.14/",
doi = "10.18653/v1/2025.trustnlp-main.14",
pages = "185--231",
ISBN = "979-8-89176-233-6",
abstract = "Accurate information is crucial for democracy as it empowers voters to make informed decisions about their representatives and keeping them accountable. In the US, state election commissions (SECs), often required by law, are the primary providers of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) to voters, and secondary sources like non-profits such as League of Women Voters (LWV) try to complement their information shortfall. However, surprisingly, to the best of our knowledge, there is neither a single source with comprehensive FAQs nor a study analyzing the data at national level to identify current practices and ways to improve the status quo. This paper addresses it by providing the \textbf{first dataset on Voter FAQs covering all the US states}. Second, we introduce metrics for FAQ information quality (FIQ) with respect to questions, answers, and answers to corresponding questions. Third, we use FIQs to analyze US FAQs to identify leading, mainstream and lagging content practices and corresponding states. Finally, we identify what states across the spectrum can do to improve FAQ quality and thus, the overall information ecosystem. Across all 50 U.S. states, 12{\%} were identified as leaders and 8{\%} as laggards for FIQSvoter, while 14{\%} were leaders and 12{\%} laggards for FIQSdeveloper. The code and sample data are provided at \url{https://anonymous.4open.science/r/election-qa-analysis-BE4E}."
}<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="rawte-etal-2025-voters">
<titleInfo>
<title>Do Voters Get the Information They Want? Understanding Authentic Voter FAQs in the US and How to Improve for Informed Electoral Participation</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Vipula</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Rawte</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Deja</namePart>
<namePart type="given">N</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Scott</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Gaurav</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Kumar</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Aishneet</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Juneja</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Bharat</namePart>
<namePart type="given">Sowrya</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Yaddanapalli</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Biplav</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Srivastava</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2025-05</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Trustworthy NLP (TrustNLP 2025)</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Trista</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Cao</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Anubrata</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Das</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Tharindu</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Kumarage</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Yixin</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Wan</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Satyapriya</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Krishna</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Ninareh</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Mehrabi</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Jwala</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Dhamala</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Anil</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Ramakrishna</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Aram</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Galystan</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Anoop</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Kumar</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Rahul</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Gupta</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Kai-Wei</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Chang</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<publisher>Association for Computational Linguistics</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">Albuquerque, New Mexico</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
<identifier type="isbn">979-8-89176-233-6</identifier>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>Accurate information is crucial for democracy as it empowers voters to make informed decisions about their representatives and keeping them accountable. In the US, state election commissions (SECs), often required by law, are the primary providers of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) to voters, and secondary sources like non-profits such as League of Women Voters (LWV) try to complement their information shortfall. However, surprisingly, to the best of our knowledge, there is neither a single source with comprehensive FAQs nor a study analyzing the data at national level to identify current practices and ways to improve the status quo. This paper addresses it by providing the first dataset on Voter FAQs covering all the US states. Second, we introduce metrics for FAQ information quality (FIQ) with respect to questions, answers, and answers to corresponding questions. Third, we use FIQs to analyze US FAQs to identify leading, mainstream and lagging content practices and corresponding states. Finally, we identify what states across the spectrum can do to improve FAQ quality and thus, the overall information ecosystem. Across all 50 U.S. states, 12% were identified as leaders and 8% as laggards for FIQSvoter, while 14% were leaders and 12% laggards for FIQSdeveloper. The code and sample data are provided at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/election-qa-analysis-BE4E.</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">rawte-etal-2025-voters</identifier>
<identifier type="doi">10.18653/v1/2025.trustnlp-main.14</identifier>
<location>
<url>https://aclanthology.org/2025.trustnlp-main.14/</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2025-05</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>185</start>
<end>231</end>
</extent>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Conference Proceedings
%T Do Voters Get the Information They Want? Understanding Authentic Voter FAQs in the US and How to Improve for Informed Electoral Participation
%A Rawte, Vipula
%A Scott, Deja N.
%A Kumar, Gaurav
%A Juneja, Aishneet
%A Yaddanapalli, Bharat Sowrya
%A Srivastava, Biplav
%Y Cao, Trista
%Y Das, Anubrata
%Y Kumarage, Tharindu
%Y Wan, Yixin
%Y Krishna, Satyapriya
%Y Mehrabi, Ninareh
%Y Dhamala, Jwala
%Y Ramakrishna, Anil
%Y Galystan, Aram
%Y Kumar, Anoop
%Y Gupta, Rahul
%Y Chang, Kai-Wei
%S Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Trustworthy NLP (TrustNLP 2025)
%D 2025
%8 May
%I Association for Computational Linguistics
%C Albuquerque, New Mexico
%@ 979-8-89176-233-6
%F rawte-etal-2025-voters
%X Accurate information is crucial for democracy as it empowers voters to make informed decisions about their representatives and keeping them accountable. In the US, state election commissions (SECs), often required by law, are the primary providers of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) to voters, and secondary sources like non-profits such as League of Women Voters (LWV) try to complement their information shortfall. However, surprisingly, to the best of our knowledge, there is neither a single source with comprehensive FAQs nor a study analyzing the data at national level to identify current practices and ways to improve the status quo. This paper addresses it by providing the first dataset on Voter FAQs covering all the US states. Second, we introduce metrics for FAQ information quality (FIQ) with respect to questions, answers, and answers to corresponding questions. Third, we use FIQs to analyze US FAQs to identify leading, mainstream and lagging content practices and corresponding states. Finally, we identify what states across the spectrum can do to improve FAQ quality and thus, the overall information ecosystem. Across all 50 U.S. states, 12% were identified as leaders and 8% as laggards for FIQSvoter, while 14% were leaders and 12% laggards for FIQSdeveloper. The code and sample data are provided at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/election-qa-analysis-BE4E.
%R 10.18653/v1/2025.trustnlp-main.14
%U https://aclanthology.org/2025.trustnlp-main.14/
%U https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.trustnlp-main.14
%P 185-231
Markdown (Informal)
[Do Voters Get the Information They Want? Understanding Authentic Voter FAQs in the US and How to Improve for Informed Electoral Participation](https://aclanthology.org/2025.trustnlp-main.14/) (Rawte et al., TrustNLP 2025)
ACL