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.