Good question and maybe one or both the other DR-based dopers may have the full answer. The explanations I’ve heard have never made sense - something to do with women’s domestic duties - but as women vote in the morning that would mean the cooking wouldn’t get done! :rolleyes:
I think it’s going to be done away with starting from the next elections, whatever the reason.
Voting in the UK is really easy and convenient. I’ve done it once - not really sure what I was voting for though. I got sent a letter saying that I was allowed to vote, so of course I decided that I should vote and walked down the road on the election day and put a big X in the box next to the party I support (well, support is a strong word - perhaps the party I believe closest represents my views).
In Sweden, I work at the elections as well and it’s just as easy there. When someone comes into the voting area we ask their name and check it against a list. We are also sent a voting card and are meant to bring this along. So, normally they just hand us the card and we check their name off the list. If they don’t have this they can still vote - we could ask for ID at this stage, but rarely (read: never unless we suspect something fishy) do so. Most people remember to bring their voting papers though. After we’ve crossed their name off the list they hand us their 3 envelopes (local, regional, and national elections) and we check that they are sealed properly and that they haven’t folded their ballot or anything and put them in a closed box to be counted later.
The US voting system sounds complicated to me (not the electoral college, but the actual voting process). I don’t understand why you feel the need for such complicated machines that I read about. I think I greatly prefer either the UK X in a box on a bit of paper or the Swedish put a paper with hte party name on it in an envelope. Seems much easier than fancy machines (and less susceptible to mistakes).
In November I was voting for a president; a national senator and congressman; a state senator and congressman; members of the state board of education; regents for three public universities; county commissioners and several other county-wide offices such as drain commissioner, prosecutor and clerk; a township clerk, treasurer, supervisor, and several members for boards; a number of state judgeships (Supreme court, circuit court, district court, probate court, and court of appeals); sheriff; a millage; and several referendums.
There were 24 races, in which there were some valid write-ins and races where you could vote for 2 or 3 people. And then there were 5 proposals.
You can’t do an x on a piece of paper with a ballot like that. And hand counting? No thanks.
I’ve worked as an election inspector in Michigan. Someone in my township who wasn’t even a citizen of the US could in advance register to vote and lie they were a citizen. No IDs checked, etc. Heck, they could even register under a totally phony name. This person could then vote at the local polling place.
It would also be possible to vote as someone else. It is very unlikely that anyone would notice unless they personally recognized you weren’t the person you were claiming to be. Or somehow did something suspicious that caused an election inspector to get hinky and challenge a ballot. Checking signatures is done. However, nobody is trained at recognizing signatures, and no ID is checked. Thus any plausible imitation would do. And, if the person registered under a bogus name, than signatures would of course match.
Ordinarily, voter registration cards aren’t brought by the voter to the polling place, nor asked for. Thus, here the system is almost totally based on trust.
Voting in the UK election the guy handing out the voting slips took my name and postcode and then asked ‘Can you confirm who you are?’
Slightly non-plussed, having never been asked this before, I answered ‘Yes’. That was enough. 
In Australia, I’ve voted in elections where there were more than 200 candidates on the ballot paper. Yes, paper, on which you could write more than 200 numbers against the candidates. Those ballot papers were indeed hand-counted. (I was a scrutineer for one of the political parties, and watched as they emptied the ballot papers onto about 6 tables placed together to receive the large sheets of paper as they came out of the ballot boxes in my polling place.)
God, I’m nearly going into convulsions just thinking about it. I don’t think you could pay me enough to work such an election. Workers at my precinct had a 22 hour day in November as it was. Surely it would take at least that long to count so many votes and races by hand.
Voting in Canada sounds quite similar to that in the UK. Everyone on the electoral rolls is sent a card indicating where they should vote, and when they show up, they are scratched off a list.
If you are not on the list, you are still entitled to vote in the polling place appropriate to your usual residence (or even homeless shelter where you customarily reside, should it come to that); it takes ID and an oath/affirmation, IIRC.
We also have voting by special ballot, advance polls, and postal ballots (which involve large amounts of paperwork and/or a request at a returning office wherever you happen to be).
The rationale seems to be that making it as easy as possible for people to vote, thereby encouraging (legitimate) voters to turn out, is much more of a concern than preventing fraud – fair enough, since our turnout is disgraceful.
Still, I think 24 races and 5 proposals is worse than 1 race with lots of candidates. I’m sure most people only put down their top 3-5 candidates in order or something like that.
Besides, the machines are not that complicated really. And whoever said people counting was more or less flawed than machine counting?
Regarding the OP, in North Carolina there were roughly 10,000 votes cast in the wrong precinct (basically people voted not where their names were listed). Who knows how many of these were duplicates? And the reigning local political party is not only counting those votes (of course their candidate was elected), but they are retroactively passing a bill so that this will always be allowed.
No, a lot of people number every square, partly from force of habit because it used to be required, and partly because it can make a difference between your 150th vote and your 151st vote, in some situations.
I’m talking about elections for the Australian Senate, and for the New South Wales Legislative Council, both of which use a PR system called the Hare-Clarke system. Elections for both used to require voters to vote for all the candidates, but not so long ago they were reformed so that voters need only vote for some candidates, and also so that voters could vote for the party ticket by putting a 1 in the box for a party group of candidates.
Note that each polling place only has an initial count of votes on the night of the election. The ballot papers get sent off to a central office to get recounted and to have preferences distributed Generally, the result in these elections won’t be known until about 10 days after the ballot.
Ugh, I think you guys need some machines. 
In one ACT election there was 117 canditates - normally I’d vote below the line, but don’t think I did then. The ballot paper was huge.