Machine counting removes the
subjectivity involved in assessing the validity of ballots and can help ensure
an impartial count. (At the same time, it will be necessary for a human
inspection of rejected ballots, in order to determine if the intention of the
voter can be discerned according to the relevant provisions of the electoral
law.) Machine counting also eliminates many other human errors, as well as
opportunities for manipulating the count and the results.
However, a machine cannot
determine a voter’s intention if the voter made an extra mark on the ballot or
did not mark it exactly in the spot that can be read by the machine. Although
the intention is clear, the ballot may be rejected.
Machines are not
infallible and, if not programmed or maintained properly, they will yield
incorrect results. For instance, in the 2000 elections in the United States,
shortcomings of the voting machines used in the state of Florida gave rise to an unprecedented
electoral and legal tangle involving the Democratic and Republican parties. The
race in that state was extremely tight and it was decided that the votes would
be recounted by hand because the defeated candidate believed that the machine
results were inaccurate. The recount was
halted by the US Supreme Court, however, on the grounds that it was not
universal, and therefore could tilt the results.
