As long as there’s a physical ballot that gets checked by the voter as part of the process and then physically counted for the official result, voting machines can be a non-mistake.
Sure, but the fast unofficial result is what leads to a quick victory being declared for the wrong person, and then “they’re stealing the votes, stop the count” when the results “change” from what was on the TV.
Better to be slow and accurate, in my opinion.
But it’s also my opinion that elections should be a drop-in event for a week rather than a one-day bash, with no partial results until they’re all counted at the end, and by all I mean every district, and a moratorium on campaigning during the actual election week.
The all-night TV map can thrilling, like a sports final, but also probably part of the problem. I think it’s too exciting.
Especially in American elections, where the vote is in November, but nothing takes effect until the end of January, why does counting the votes need to be instant? You could take 2 weeks to count them, who cares, nothing changes that night anyway.
Sure, but the fast unofficial result is what leads to a quick victory being declared for the wrong person, and then “they’re stealing the votes, stop the count” when the results “change” from what was on the TV.
That’s caused by partial result announcements. Which would still happen with or without voting machines, given the way your elections are run. You could change that, but you probably won’t. Especially given you’d end up with conspiracy nonsense (“but what are they hiding?!?”) if you waited for the complete and official numbers - especially with the instant gratification people are programmed for these days. So damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
The legibility and consistency (and potentially streamlining voter throughput at the polls) is probably the much more important part, anyway. Not necessarily to the point of voting machines being a reasonable expense, I’d suggest, but the voting machine company lobbyists are effective if nothing else.
As long as there’s a physical ballot that gets checked by the voter as part of the process and then physically counted for the official result, voting machines can be a non-mistake.
But if it’s counted physically, then what does the machine provide that paper and pencil haven’t for a hundred years?
A fast unofficial result, and a legible and consistent printed ballot to be counted.
Sure, but the fast unofficial result is what leads to a quick victory being declared for the wrong person, and then “they’re stealing the votes, stop the count” when the results “change” from what was on the TV.
Better to be slow and accurate, in my opinion.
But it’s also my opinion that elections should be a drop-in event for a week rather than a one-day bash, with no partial results until they’re all counted at the end, and by all I mean every district, and a moratorium on campaigning during the actual election week.
The all-night TV map can thrilling, like a sports final, but also probably part of the problem. I think it’s too exciting.
Especially in American elections, where the vote is in November, but nothing takes effect until the end of January, why does counting the votes need to be instant? You could take 2 weeks to count them, who cares, nothing changes that night anyway.
That’s caused by partial result announcements. Which would still happen with or without voting machines, given the way your elections are run. You could change that, but you probably won’t. Especially given you’d end up with conspiracy nonsense (“but what are they hiding?!?”) if you waited for the complete and official numbers - especially with the instant gratification people are programmed for these days. So damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
The legibility and consistency (and potentially streamlining voter throughput at the polls) is probably the much more important part, anyway. Not necessarily to the point of voting machines being a reasonable expense, I’d suggest, but the voting machine company lobbyists are effective if nothing else.