[EM] range ballots chew up slots; "unsupported" range voting claims

[Warren Smith]

As was recently pointed out, it is correct that with range ballots
run on ordinary plurality voting machines, slots (e.g. "levers" on
NY-style machines) get "chewed up" 10 times faster than
with plain plurality voting.  Assuming 10 levels.  
With L levels, L times faster.

Consequently if enough elections or large enough elections, more
machines would be needed, or you'd have to have fewer levels.

So, not so fun.

On the other hand with say, optical scan machines, you'd "chew up 
those little pen-fill blobs on the piece of paper" which seems much 
less of a limitation. Ditto with many kinds of punch card machines.

So I am not saying range voting is wonderful to run on
all plurality machines.  I *AM* saying, it can be done on
every plurality machine in the USA, with varying levels
of convenience or inconvenience depending on the machine type 
and the election.           

I do not especially recommend running range elections in this style.
I would much prefer it if there were voting machines specifically designed
for range voting.  However, because range voting CAN be done on
plurality machines as a stopgap measure, that makes it a lot
more adoptible than many other forms of voting, for
example IRV, which CANNOT be done on many kinds of plurality machines.

Finally, it has been claimed that I make a lot of "unsupported statements"
about range voting.  (Which itself was an unsupported statement...)
If a list of such statements is brought to my 
attention, I will try to back them up.  In fact I have already done
so on various occasions and the CRV web site also backs me up
a good deal.  But anyhow, whatever statement you find insufficiently
supported, query me on and I'll try to get back
to EM on that statement.  I believe everything I say is supported,
...  but I am not perfect.   Anyhow please let me know.  Thank you.