[EM] Cost of Manual Counting vs. Machine Counting

[James Gilmour]

> Brian Olson> Sent: 25 May 2007 17:59
> 
> 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.

I don't have any data to hand, but I remember from many years ago, a senior statistician warning
about the very significant error rate in any manual key-punching operation when large amounts of
data had to be input.  "Punch and verify", where every data form is keyed in twice - the second time
by a different operator, does reduce the number of errors that make it into the data file, but of
course, it doubles the time and cost.  (There have been lots of studies on data-entry error rates,
but I haven't searched for what is currently available on-line.)

Also you must not underestimate the time the punching will take.  I have just been looking at some
of the Irish results now coming in, available on-line at www.ireland.com.  One 5-member district I
spotted had more than 61,000 valid ballots with 13 candidates. That's a lot of key-strokes.  The
Dáil Éireann has 166 members elected from 42 districts (3, 4 and 5-member), but it is the number of
candidates that determines the volume of data.

James Gilmour