Graeme:
My own observation is that systems that decentralize the tallying process
among many polling stations possessing (1) well-trained and honest officials
and (2) party observers is the way to go. Break up huge counties into small
ones for running votes. Way to go -- you guys invented the austrailian
ballot and continue to provide important lessons about electoral governance.
Simple is better (but, who knows what combination of paper with no traces
and electronic savvy can do for us).
Best,
Fabrice Lehoucq
Division of Political Studies
Centro de Investigaci—n y Docencia Econ—mica (CIDE)
Carret. Mexico-Toluca 3655
Lomas de Santa Fˇ, Mexico City, DF, CP 01210
Tel. 52/5727-9800, ext. 2215 (voice) & -9871 or 9873 (fax)
E-mail: Fabrice.Lehoucq@cide.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu]On Behalf Of Graeme Orr
Sent: Martes, 24 de Septiembre de 2002 07:07 p.m.
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: paper ballots - down under
In paperful Australia, our House of Reps 'precincts' (known as
'sub-divisions') are rarely bigger than 2 - 3 000 (out of
divisions/districts in the order of 90 000). Counting is a breeze. Having
scrutineered many times, the average hand count, including a re-tabulation,
takes between 30 mins and 1.5 hours. Everything is officially counted a
second time, and re-counted in close elections, back at Commission
headquarters, where the preferences are distributed. This is with the
'alternative vote' (ie instant runoff) in single member divisions.
Optical scan technology is hardly needed: indeed as postal votes have 10
days to come in, no scanning would hurry up the result in really close
electorates. The downside, which Americans might resent, is that an
official preference count does not occur on election night: but party
scrutineers watch for this and this information is fed into the media
reporting. Actually it adds to the fun and is better for political
scientists and the ritual of elections. (It's a bit like sex, no? If it
is fun, why do you want it over in seconds!)
The real problem is with multi-member elections using the transferable
vote. With up to 75 candidates chasing up to 12 seats, the ballots are
large and the process of transferring weighted preferences is unwieldy. So
our Senate counts are sloow and impenetrable without direct technology.
The system we use will seem Dickensian: banks of (female) data entry people
double enter each ballot to a computer. This takes a week or more over a
State of say 3-5 million voters (the time could be shortened with more
resources of course). Then, when all the ballots are entered by hand, a
button is pressed. And presto, the 'count' takes a matter of minutes.
Graeme Orr, Griffith Law School, Brisbane, Australia