There are a number of automated devices that are marketed as a means of improving voting methods and reducing costs, especially staffing costs. It is claimed that some of the machines offer a high degree of reliability and resistance to electoral malpractice. Many are now capable of providing audit trail facilities. These include electronic voting machines (EVMs) which have been used in countries such as Australia, Belgium, Brazil, the United States, and Venezuela over the last few years, and recently for the first time in the whole of India. Although no reliable cost-effectiveness analysis exists on the use of new technology for voting and the count, there is evidence that technology such as EVMs may reduce election costs over time, especially costs associated with the printing and storage of ballot papers and also the vote count. The use of optical mark reading (OMR) devices to count votes can also provide accuracy and time-effectiveness in the electoral process while still ensuring the existence of a paper ballot that can be physically examined if necessary in the course of post-election disputes.

It is important to weigh the use of new electoral technology against the level of public trust and confidence in the electoral process, to involve stakeholders in pilot testing new electronic systems, and to obtain major stakeholders’ agreement to the introduction of new technology. Due to the potential lack of transparency of electronic voting and counting, the use of EVMs may generate distrust among detractors who can argue that such technology can easily lend itself to manipulation. This is not surprising, given the security deficiencies, and omissions and errors in recording votes regularly reported in the use of DRE (direct-recording electronic, or touch screen) machines and other EVMs in the USA.

The accuracy and integrity of these machines is only as good as that of the companies and persons designing, programming, testing, and maintaining them. There are ways of introducing EVMs that can provide integrity, cost, and time benefits to the election process – provided that clear controls and accountability measures, such as regular audits and back-up systems, (see Accountability for the Use of Technology-based Systems), have been implemented.

It is not wise for a poor country to go high-tech while failing to feed and develop its own people. The use of electoral high technology such as digitized voter registration cards, computerised electoral registers, and electronic voting and counting should be weighed against other pressing national priorities such as health and education. Electoral technology may be more sustainable where it can be used for other continuing functions. Its introduction also needs to be considered not just against the immediate costs and alternative uses of funds, but future costs and human skills required for their maintenance. Assessing sustainability needs to consider the longer-term consequences.

The counting process is a prime target in many countries for automation and cost reduction, and many automated machines both record votes and tally them. Unless paper audit trails are recorded for each vote, transparency may be lacking in these automated counts. The counting process is considered to be a vulnerable part of an election, and always needs to be conducted in a transparent manner by well trained staff.

The requirement for openness at all stages of the counting and tabulation of votes may also limit the cost-saving measures that can be introduced into manual vote-counts. Stakeholders in the general election in Guyana in 1997 and the Union elections in Zanzibar (Tanzania) in 1995 and 2000 complained that events which took place during the tallying phase of the count adversely affected the election results and underlined the importance of transparency in the entire counting process. Both cases involved changes made by unknown persons to some of the count results subsequent to figures being issued from polling stations. Opposition parties in both instances believed that the interference did affect the outcome of the elections.