You also have 1/40th the population and 1/225th the size. ;)
Securing our votes
Posted Aug 11, 2007 23:38 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
Posted Aug 13, 2007 7:40 UTC (Mon) by himi (guest, #340)
I've never understood the attraction of voting machines - I'm Australian, and we've always done perfectly well with hand counting. A fair number of Americans that I've discussed this with think there are valid reasons for using them in the US, though . . .
Posted Aug 13, 2007 8:54 UTC (Mon) by dlang (subscriber, #313)
if it's a small number then manual counting isn't that bad, but in the US it's not unusual for there to be a couple dozen selections (including the 'vote for up to 3' type of selection). this makes counting the votes more complicated and manual counting more error prone.
Posted Aug 13, 2007 9:05 UTC (Mon) by rwmj (subscriber, #5474)
when you go to vote, how many selections do you make on one ballot?
In general [government] elections in the UK, which are
the most important elections, usually you pick one candidate
from a list of 3 or 4. So obviously counting these is easiest.
Local elections are more complicated - for example the last
London mayoral election in (IIRC) 2002(?) had a fantastically
complicated series of ballots with transferable votes
which I don't think even voters
really understood well.
Anyway, all are counted by hand.
Perhaps the lesson here is that you should simplify the
ballots? If the ballots are too complicated to be counted
by hand, do the voters themselves understand or care enough
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds