>Once we go back to paper, a ranking system becomes quite a bit harder to implement I assume your "yes/no" for each candidate is designed to make it easier for

>Once we go back to paper, a ranking system becomes quite a bit harder to implement I assume your "yes/no" for each candidate is designed to make it easier for a machine to count? If you get rid of machines and have humans who can be observed to show they're doing it correctly (which I think is the best way, since then the whole process can be easily understood by every voter) then it's not harder, it just takes longer as you have to run another round of counting as you eliminate candidates who didn't get sufficient votes. Vote counts don't need to come back same night or next day, the media can drum up drama in some other way than an all-night results watch. Obviously you have some pretty large districts with vastly more votes to count, but in those larger districts you also have a larger pool of volunteers to count. Ranking candidates in preference order also works the way that people think: "I want X, and if I can't have X I'd be OK with Y, or failing that with Z". None of these solutions will stop the bad-faith actors in the political system claiming that everything is rigged, but you'll never make those folks happy unless their candidate wins with the level of landslide they want