Unless the result is contested you have saved an amount of counting effort which could be a cost saving. Though I suspect it would take some time for the ROI of implementing such a system to work out positive.
> > Unless the result is contested
> > you have saved an amount of counting effort
> The ballots are already optically scanned.
If the result is contested then I presume that this scanning may also be under suspicion (of being faulty or having been somehow doctored deliberately).
> > cost savings
> A handful of pencils per-voting-booth is far cheaper than any computer+printer solution.
Why is why I mentioned the time for ROI to become positive. The electronic counting will save time (man power for the initial count, the need for recounts, and just wall-clock time so the results are available earlier) but the cost will be high. At some point perhaps the solution will pay for itself in time/resources saved but it will take quite a while if at all.
Maybe you should study how elections are actually implemented instead of making assumptions. I suggest watching the talk I linked to in my top-level post.
> this scanning may also be under suspicion
Obviously. Hence why it's important to recount the paper ballots by hand. This is also why about half of the states require confirming the reliability of the optical scanners with a random sampling of hand counts.
> At some point perhaps the solution will pay for itself
No, it won't. Computers per-voting-booth are always going to be a lot more expensive than an optical scan tabulator per-site.
Also, because a computer+printer solution involves a lot more devices, you will need a larger amount of testing by hand recount. You are increasing the workload.
