What you describe is not that different from Australia's preferential system afaict, aside from people at one district potentially having different ballots.

Australian ballots are not always simple, and you vote for your local representative so each district has a different one. Often you will have multiple ballots to complete, and some have the choice between above or below the line voting (where above you select some preferences and below you select all preferences, where all may be over 100 boxes).

Parties often hand out small leaflets outside the voting locations with instructions for above the line voting, which is typically a list of around 6 preferences in order.

Despite this, voting in Australia is done with paper, and we have live coverage with real-time counts on election night. Paper works quite well, computers really aren't necessary.

Australia is always a curveball! I've wondered how a precinct counts those ballots, especially if some people vote below the line. I hope someone with experience comments here.

You don't have to wonder, the counting process is well documented! :)

https://www.aec.gov.au/voting/counting/

Thanks, I'm still confused but it seems in essence before counting they make an educated guess of the two likely winners and first count with that in mind and only do a more complicated tally if it ends-up mathematically possible for one of the others to still come-out on top.

> sometimes what party I am registered with

This is one of the very weird things about the US system, that somewhere in reconstruction the parties were effectively nationalised and allowed to use state-run election infrastructure.

The concept of "registered for party X" doesn't exist in European systems. The state has no business running internal party affairs, they can select their own candidates.

This situation can be remarkably complex. In my county of around half a million people there can be over five hundred distinct ballot types in some elections. The underlying reason for this is election consolidation, in which elections held by different authorities using different voting districts are all combined into one ballot for the voter's convenience.

For example, in many areas the school district legally conducts separate elections based on separate precincts. But, no one is excited to take a separate trip to the polling place just for the school district election, which results in very low turnout. To improve turnout and save money, the school district questions are combined onto the same ballot as the municipal election - but two voters in the same municipal election precinct may be in different school district precincts. Imagine how this challenge multiplies as you add soil and water conservation districts, judicial districts, economic development areas, county issues, etc.

In Canada voters at the same polling place get the same ballot only because there are enough polling places that local district seats will always be larger than polling catchment areas.

Last election I walked into my polling place six minutes before my bus was supposed to arrive right out front and caught my bus.

Skimping on costs when it comes to elections is pretty silly - it makes sense to make sure there isn't rampant corruption but people have enough reasons not to vote that adding inconvenience to the list can be quite discouraging.

In the US voting occurs during a workday and so there is a significant push towards 'voting convenience' or 'non-precinct voting' where a voter may appear at any polling place instead of only at their designated precinct. This is a huge advantage for voters but requires that ballots be either selected from a large supply or printed on-site for each voter. This effectively requires the use of a computerized pollbook.