Saying we should ignore US elections as an example is totally ridiculous.

The US fails to do this and then has a problem counting fast enough. We should ignore the fact that the US is incapable of running proper elections since we have plenty of examples across the world of well run elections.

>failed to complete counting their votes in time for an election to be called for a particular candidate

This is another example of not running a proper election. If you haven't counted the vote the election is not over. There is no such thing as "not calling in time". In time for what? The news cycle?

I'm not even sure what “failed to complete counting their votes in time for an election to be called for a particular candidate”; are election results perishable such that of a count takes too long it no longer counts? Specific examples of the phenomenon you are discussing would perhaps be useful.

Isn't there a logical fallacy named for nitpicking (concern trolling) while ignoring the whole picture?

My comment was merely in support of that.

With regard to machines, many machines have recorded thousands of extra votes. Some machines run out of memory, and end up losing thousands of votes (those machines did not have paper trails). There's been plenty of problems with these machines - ones that can be fixed. But the fact that every precinct decides independently what to do and how to do it, there is absolutely no way (in the US) to provide a uniform solution to the problems of paperless voting.

This would mean there is a digital record on receipt of the ballot and the ballot itself. This seemingly would reduce the potential for fraud in both systems.

Again, 5,000 independent districts, and every single district manages itself independently. There is no way whatsoever to ensure proper implementation.

> have no significant fraud possibilities

We have a ton of provisions implemented to curtail significant attempts at fraud of paper ballots. And in paper ballot and absentee voting, there are large numbers of problems virtually every election cycle in various jurisdictions.

> and convince whoever lost the election that he indeed lost

This isn't even close to accurate. If there is a wide margin in a result, it isn't officially contested, even when we have evidence of corruption. When the margin is small, and a recount could possibly swing the vote, then the electee becomes unconvinced and demands a recount. (Or when the election result is simply too extreme, and the necessity of a recount is obvious)

Right, so the evidence that the US sucks at implementing paper elections should be used to advocate the implementation of an incredibly more complex system that somehow will implement itself?

>We have a ton of provisions implemented to curtail significant attempts at fraud of paper ballots. And in paper ballot and absentee voting, there are large numbers of problems virtually every election cycle in various jurisdictions.

Most of the world runs these kinds of elections regularly without issue and electronic means only makes this worse. You not only don't make the count any more accurate you also add complexity and enable a bunch of denial of service opportunities.

>This isn't even close to accurate. If there is a wide margin in a result, it isn't officially contested, even when we have evidence of corruption. When the margin is small, and a recount could possibly swing the vote, then the electee becomes unconvinced and demands a recount. (Or when the election result is simply too extreme, and the necessity of a recount is obvious)

All of that is true in the US yes, but again that's because the process is poor enough. Other places have extremely close elections that don't require this. You have such poor confidence in your election process you sometimes have legally mandated recounts on a low enough margin.

Using both electronic and paper means we get the benefits of both, and each side's downsides are managed by the other mechanism. According to every expert on the subject it's the most effective means we have right now.

If you would like to compare countries and voting systems, I welcome that discussion, but unless it works specifically for the US, it's not relevant.

Citation is needed for this. I know of no expert that recommends this and no argument for this. I've already pointed out how an electronic+paper system would be extremely vulnerable to attack. All you need is for the count to be different between the two for no one to trust your election.

>If you would like to compare countries and voting systems, I welcome that discussion, but unless it works specifically for the US, it's not relevant.

There's nothing about the way elections are properly run everywhere else that wouldn't work in the US. Implement enough voting booths properly staffed and you'll have no issues. If you can't do that you also can't implement any complex electronic system so this discussion is pointless.

The gold standard is precinct-based tabulation of paper ballots, counted the moment the polls close.