> the amount of manual work must be enormous. This is a feature, not a bug. An "indicative count" is available on the night of an election, and final results

> the amount of manual work must be enormous. This is a feature, not a bug. An "indicative count" is available on the night of an election, and final results take a few weeks. A few weeks versus extremely high assurance of a legitimate count is an excellent tradeoff, in my view. Who is hurt by the delay? Nobody. It's already expected and accounted for. As a profession we love benchmark porn -- latency! throughput! TPS! BPS! -- but optimisation is pointless if you undermine key guarantees. It's pointless to have an instant count if it can't be trusted. And the sheer unwieldiness of a paper ballot drastically amplifies the difficulty of subverting it.