Agreed. With _what_ Americans are electing, the number of additional policy questions, etc, I can see how hand counting could be a lot more difficult than elsew

Agreed. With _what_ Americans are electing, the number of additional policy questions, etc, I can see how hand counting could be a lot more difficult than elsewhere. However my question would be more one of... why do that then? Are voters actually able to make a conscious, informed decision on the governor, state rep, coroner, judge, board of equalization member, insurance commissioner, etc? Or are they looking at the governor and _maybe_ state rep and just voting R/D down the ballot? In that case, at _best_ a candidate can influence who people vote for mostly based on how much money they can spend on advertising, memorable sound bites, and advocating to change things that may not need changing. Maybe we don't need a bazillion ads telling us how "tough on crime" the judge will be in a country with almost 5x the rate of incarceration as China? Maybe Arizona would have an easier time counting elections if people didn't need to vote for the State Mine Inspector? It varies by province, but in Canada generally the judges are selected by having an arms-length committee of some lay people, a couple judges and a couple lawyers select a few possible candidates from people who meet some reasonable qualifications, and the minister of justice picks from the list and has it confirmed by the current government.