[EM] Cost of Manual Counting vs. Machine Counting

[Brian Olson]

I think this reinforces my position that the current best mix of 
speed, reliability, trustworthiness and cost is to have people reading 
ballots punching data into common desktop computers.

Assuming the recognition is correct, missed kepresses should be relatively 
rare, and there can be redundant counting for that and other reasons.

A $500-$1000 PC can be used for data entry and then after the election 
returned to other service in whatever branch of government counts the 
election. So, that cost can be practically negligible (some IT time 
wrangling the machines).

Desktop/Server software is more common and easier to do in an Open way 
than embedded software for a special purpose voting machine. More people 
can write it, more people can read it and check it.

And of course having the computer do the final processing makes 
IRV/STV/IRNR/whatever-else-election-methods-nerds-dream-up feasible and 
even easy.

On the one hand, it's always good to have a hand-countable fall back, but 
I think I'd rather move forward and make sure the computer methods are 
good. If we somehow loose the ability to have computers do the counting, 
we probably have bigger problems to worry about.

Brian Olson
http://bolson.org/

On Fri, 25 May 2007, James Gilmour wrote:

>> Brian Olson > Sent: 25 May 2007 16:34
>> In most estimates that I think are reasonable, machines come out bad to
>> very bad. Unless you think it's worth paying the premium price for fast
>> election night returns.
>
> It does also depend on the voting system you are using and the version of the rules for that voting
> system you are using.  In Northern Ireland the STV counting rules specify the Gregory Method for
> transferring surplus votes.  In that method most ballot papers are sorted and counted only once.  In
> Scotland the STV counting rules specified the Weighted Inclusive Gregory Method for transferring
> surplus votes.  In that method a high proportion of the ballot papers may have to be sorted and
> counted several times over.  Quite apart from the time taken in repeated sorting and counting, there
> are logistical issues about making sure all the differently valued ballot papers are kept separate
> and are handled correctly.  It can be done by hand, but it is certainly much quicker and easier by
> computer.  What caused the delays in the recent Scottish elections was the unexpected large numbers
> of ballot papers that were submitted for adjudication after scanning, many of which were OK but not
> completely within the high level spec set for automatic processing.
>
> James Gilmour
>
> ----
> election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>