It is evident that technological advances can be very useful in the handling of administrative processes in electoral systems, because they can be very complex, with a vast number of subjects, requiring an enormous volume of information to be gathered and processed in a very short period of time. In this field, there are two main problems: the typical ones when it comes to evaluating any organisation (effectiveness and efficiency) and safety, interpreted in the broad sense.
It obviously makes no sense to introduce technical elements that will hamper the electoral operations, whether it be due to a lack of qualifications of those who have to use the technology or because of the inadequacy of the rest of the administrative or material structures of the country. An example of failure in the utilisation of technology that was too advanced and costly could be observed in the last presidential elections in Guinea (see The Failure of high technological method in Guinea).
Furthermore, the efficiency of the technology used must be considered, and the employment of very costly procedures be avoided to obtain results that can be reached with other less spectacular ones. The rule should be the opposite: an essential requirement of all kinds of administration is the optimisation of their efficiency, attempting to reach their objectives
at the lowest possible cost. It is not effective to set up an advanced telecommunications network to transmit the results of the polling stations when this can be done by telephone. An experiment such as the use of the cash-dispenser network in Costa Rica could be interesting, but it certainly would not be if such a network were set up only for electoral processes. In short, each country should have an electoral procedure and some material means that are reasonably adequate to their social and economic condition. Free and fair elections should not be confused with elections that are so costly to administer that a developing country cannot afford them on their own.
The second aspect is the safety or reliability required when such means are employed. Written communication systems cannot be replaced if the transmission of the electoral results in another form does not offer sufficient safety guarantees.
On the other hand, it has to be considered that these means cannot always replace some formal, traditional procedures, at least without causing greater evils. It is necessary, for example, to maintain a formalised system of election documents to serve as a basis for the official naming of the candidacies, but these cannot become the only source of official information on the results. Such restriction would give rise to unfounded suspicions regarding the results during the days or weeks that pass without reliable news. Reasonable technological means, such as the telephone, permit advance information on the vote count to be announced and reliable forecasts to be made.
