I'm not quite following why you left this comment, when the photograph on the article is of a woman in Michigan literally depositing a paper ballot. The machines discussed are for tabulating paper ballots.
And why are we using machines for tabulating? The number of people available to count ballots scales linearly with the number of votes cast generally...
> The number of people available to count ballots scales linearly with the number of votes cast generally...
Yes, but the amount of work in tabulating with humans, if you have a time bound, scales superlinearly; as you scale out the number of people tabulating initially beyond one, you add coordination overhead, which is superlinear with the number of people coordinated.
Only slightly. Other countries manage to get results the same night as the election despite hand counting. Even with an extra level of management to handle 300m instead of 30m, you would still get it all done in the same time.
What about machine tabulating first and then hand count afterwards as a check? Alternatively any party can ask for a manual recount of individual districts?
> Bernhard, who is an expert witness for election integrity activists in a lawsuit filed in Georgia to force officials to get rid of paperless voting machines used in that state
