I really want this to be a GQ.
I’m presuming that the “mark the candidate of your choice” (ie with pencil or similar, or paper) method is the oldest one known, for secret ballots in modern democracy. (If I’m wrong on this, please shout me down.)
Why was this abandoned? What benefits did punchcard systems and suchlike offer, that made then so attractive?
Note that many modern countries still use marked ballots for all the obvious reasons. In particular more secure and checkable. Canada is one such country.
Only in a country like America do you get this “Computerized balloting is more modern! It has to be better!” nonsense.
The recent Federal move to “encourage” states to go to touch screen voting has nothing to do with cost, security, etc. It’s main purpose is to make voting easier to rig.
Sorry, I meant that to be part of my OP :smack:
The whole question is about the USA.
Punch cards can be counted much more quickly and, presumably, more accurately. Look at the recent elections in Afghanistan. Final results take weeks to tabulate. Americans are too impatient for that.
Of course, as we all know too well, punch cards are not as accurate as we would like to believe (hanging chads and all that). Ordinarily in an election the margin of error due to rejected cards, damaged cards and so on is much smaller than the overall correctly tabulated margin so no one cares. A “perfect” count wouldn’t change things anyway. I think (don’t know) the notion that an entire US election with millions of voters hanging inside that error margin on a few hundred voters was something no one considered would really happen so no political will to spend the money to make it work better.
The delays in Afghanistan were for all sorts of reasons. Not least due to a non-existant infrastructure ruled by warlords.
In the UK, the polls close at 10pm, and the unofficial race to produce the first results (entirely from cross-the-box paper votes) somewhere around midnight. Apart from multiple recounts and N Ireland, everything’s done by the time people are at work the next morning. Would punch cards make this faster?
(Note I’m ignoring the computer systems, which have a whole separate range of problems)
It doesn’t take weeks in an industrialized country. We don’t even “mark the candidate of our choice”, but we get papers, each of them with the name of a different candidate already printed on it. So we pick the one we want and put it in an envellope (actually, a mark on the ballot makes it void).
The official national results are always known during the night (the pool stations close at 8 p.m.), and the official local results quite early in the evening.
I participated a number of times in the counting of ballots, and generally it takes one hour or so. Then , of course, the results of each poll station must be communicated and added up.
Gorcha on the speediness thing.
What about accuracy? No clue as to the answer…actually asking.
I’m not entirely sure what you are asking.
Which may or may not make my answer relevant.
The U.S. has no single standardized system, and there are many states/counties/precincts that are perfectly happy with their current “fill in the blank” voting systems. I’m not sure how widespread the movement to change to something else really is.
The Smithsonian on the history of voting methods in the US. It’s very good.
To the OP, the progression generally went paper ballots -> mechanical lever machines -> punch cards. Paper ballots were bad because they had to be counted and that lead to fraud, so they switched to a machine that could count the votes. But the machines were expensive, so they scaled badly, and mechanical, so they could break down. So that’s where punchcards came in. But I have no experience with punchcards, since we never left stage 2 around here.
You’re wrong on this. But I would never shout! 
The original method of written voting, used almost universally in the United States until the late 1800’s, is the method already described by clairobscur, in which voters drop preprinted tickets bearing the names of their candidates into a ballot box. This is the origin of the phrase, to be “on the ticket”. The newfangled method, in which the state pre-prints ballots listing the names of all qualified candidates, is called the “Australian ballot” after its country of origin. The Australian ballot makes it much more difficult for illiterate and semi-literate people to vote, which was argued as a point in its favor when it was adopted. It also allows the state to control ballot access, which makes it difficult for new political parties to become established.
I’m not sure non-Americans quite grasp the magnitude of the task facing the typical American voter when he or she enters the voting booth. (Conversely, Americans don’t realize how unique we are in this regard.) We insist on electing a bewildering plethora of state, county, local, and federal officials, in addition to a laundry list of judges and endless voting on local referenda and bond issues. To count all these by hand would be a frigging nightmare.
Actually, I think the oldest voting method known was that used in early Greece (birthplace of democracy).
As I recall from some long ago college history, they generally decided by having each candidate give a speech in the public square, then each (male) citizen voted by dropping a pebble into the vase in front of the candidate he preferred. Secret, in that each citizen walked down the line, and put his hand over each candidates’ vase, but only dropped his pebble in one. A voter could make his vote public by walking directly to one candidates vase, but that was considered ‘bad form’.
This is probably not what you meant by ‘modern democracy’, though.
Here’s the Cringely column on why other countries use simple systems. The description of the Canadian system is in the latter part of it. But don’t just skip down, note the article goes to great length to point out the political reasons why the US does things so badly.
Again, note how it doesn’t take weeks at all for Canada to do a vote count. Enough info is in to call most races by midnight and final results (that can be trusted) are known by the next morning.
Sometimes tech makes things better, sometimes it doesn’t. You have to be rational about figuring out which is which.
We’ve gone over this in a couple of other recent threads. In one, I quoted from last week’s New Scientist magazine article explaining why the U.S. does not use the ballots common in Europe that the error rate in hand-counting is up around 2%, hugely higher than mechanical systems. The error rate is so high that it can give results that don’t even fall into the gray area in which recounts are mandated.
Others have posted extensively on the huge number of simultaneous elections that are held in the U.S., so that any individual ballot does not just have the Presidential race - pick one, but can have literally dozens of individual races as well as referendums and other issues up for vote.
In short, mechanical and electronic systems vastly speed counting, lower the error rate, and offer fewer possibilities for fraud.
Cringely would do well to read the Dope for a while before writing nonsense that we’ve thoroughly exploded.
In July 2004, population of France: 60,424,213
In July 2004, populaton of United States: 293,027,571
Could this explain why it would take longer to count the votes in the US if done the French way? and leave room for more errors??
Indeed. Over here, each election or vote is held on a separate day. So, we can have as much as, say, four election days in the same year, depending on the calendar (some elections are held every 5 years, others every 6 years, etc…, so as a result you could have several years without any election, or several elections during the same year).
But given that the turnover is already very low in the USA, I assume it wouldn’t be a great idea to hold the various elections on different days, over there. the turnover would drop even more.
Besides, indeed, we don’t elect all these local officials like judges, sheriffs, etc…
The system I’ve been using in Minnesota ever since I’ve been voting (almost 12 years now) has been a paper and a marker. (I’ve posted this somewhere before).
The ballot will look a bit like this
We’re giving the sheet and a black marker to fill in the blank between the arrows for the candidate of our choice. That ballot then goes in a temporary folder for privacy which I bring over to the optical scanner. The optical scanner sucks in the ballot and records the vote. If there’s an error on the ballot (voting for too many judges etc) the ballot will be spat out and I will be given a new ballot with which to vote and the old one will be destroyed.
The benefits of our system are pretty obvious. Accurate voting. Automatic and immediate counting. And a paper trail.
IMO, this should be the *de facto * system.
Having, as I said, personnally counted the ballots several times, I can’t how therer could be a 2% error margin.
There are several of us counting the ballots, and I can’t see how we all could make the same mistake (and if there’s a discrepancy, of course, we do a recount.
Roughly, it goes this way :
The ballot box is opened. Ballots are counted, and the number compared to the numbers of people who voted. Then, they’re dispatched amongst several tables, with several scrutinizer around them.
The first person open the envellope, and pass the ballot to the second one. This one announce the name of the candidate (or says : “void” if the ballot isn’t valid), and pass it to the third person who piles the ballots nicely. So, at least three different people (and whoever else who’s watching the table) see the ballot. The two other scrutinizers write down the vote on a register when each name is announced.
Then , the votes on each register are added up and compared. The total is also compared to the number of the nicely piled up ballots. When all tables are finished, the figures are added, and once again compared to the original number of ballots and the number of voters. The figures are phoned and the ballots sealed for further comparison if some contestation arise.
Of course, a prestidigitator amongst the scrutinizer could probably switch some ballots, and the procedure isn’t foolproof against every form of fraud (for instance, wrong numbers could be phoned in and the registers subsequently altered) . But I doubt there could be a margin of ** error ** as high as the 2% you’re quoting if no fraud is involved. The ballots are counted by several persons as many times as it takes for the figures to match. The only way there could be a discrepancy, in practice, would be if a ballot is lost (or stolen) during the counting process. I can’t believe this could happen to 2% of the ballots nation wide.
No, and no. As long as the counter/vote ratio is the same.
Nope. Because ballots are counted separately in each polling station. So whether there’s 200 voters and only one polling station in the country or 200 millions voters and dozens of thousands polling stations, it will take roughly the same time.
The overall number of errors with more voters and more polling station will obviosly be higher, but the rate of error won’t.
I would rather assume that, as noted, the fact that there are many votes held at the same time would make the counting significantly more complicated and longer.
Also, from bits of information I read here and there, I’m wondering if american polling stations could be significantly larger, with much more voters, than the french polling stations. For instance, I read somewhere something about a judge being present. Since there isn’t an unlimited supply of judges, if there’s one in each of them, I assume there’s much less stations, hence much more ballots to count in each of them, making the process longer.
For instance, here, there are generally some hundreds people voting in each station, no more. How many are there in an “average” american polling station?
[slight hijack]
According to the Cartoon History of the Universe, an unfortunate councilman and his entire family was stoned for suggesting that they put to a vote the Persian’s offer of peace during Xerxes’ (ultimately furtive) invasion of Greece.
“Oh, so this is ‘voting’!”
[/slight hijack]