I disagree with the assertion that "no one can count all those different orderings by hand". To steelman a bit, let's consider a worst-case brute force manual

I disagree with the assertion that "no one can count all those different orderings by hand". To steelman a bit, let's consider a worst-case brute force manual tabulation of the results (there certainly may be more efficient ways to do it by hand than what I write here): On a ranked ballot with 8 proposals, there's effectively (8 * 7)=56 binary options (do you prefer A over B, do you prefer B over A, do you prefer A over C, etc.) In this vote, there were 452 valid ballots. 452 * 56 = 25,312 individual data points to tabulate, into a 8x8 matrix of results. If reading an individual result off a ballot and counting it takes a person 1-10 seconds, the entire tabulation would take 7-70 person-hours. With that 8x8 matrix of individual results tabulated, determining the Condorcet winner (or the members of the Schulze set, if there's no Condorcet winner), takes less than 1 person-hour, by hand. Now, that's certainly not an instantaneous result, but it's certainly within the realm of feasibility for a completely non-electronic election or referendum. As another way of sanity-checking, consider that major elections in the U.S. often involve a combination of local, state, and federal ballots that can have upwards of 30 individual questions in total, and millions of ballots are cast, and results are typically certified within a fairly short timeframe. It offline's certainly the case that an all-electronic vote is faster, more convenient, and that this lower cost can also allow for more proposals on the ballot, and more frequent and more granular elections, but I'd say it's a far cray from being "absolutely dependent on electronic vote".