Read the comment again. I was juxtaposing population density spread over the geography, not saying population density in and of itself is the reason we have machines. Even so, apparently I was unclear.

It basically equates to this…

How many people have to be run through how many polling locations over how long a time; how long do you have to count the votes, do they have to be centralized before they can be counted, and what do the counts/audits entail? Then, how do you pull it off given the population and area you are responsible for following all the rules and legal requirements you are obligated to meet?

I’m also not saying that’s the only reason, but that these factors produce challenges to the vote historically and contemporaneously that have to be handled. Same as for every other country that conducts a democratic vote.

For example, Australia is a contiguous nation, UK and US are not. That’s a geographic factor that must be considered. Most of Australia’s population is in its coastal cities but their overall population is a whole lot less, the US is closer to a 50/50 split between urban and rural populations. Which will mean that Australia can have fewer voting locations because they don’t have to run as many people through, even in their most densest areas in the time frame allotted to vote. They also don’t have to provide as many staff (voluntary in US) to conduct the vote and the count. So their population and where that population is clustered is a factor in what they’re able to do to hold an election.

You brought up how dense the UK is in comparison to the US and you’re right. My state is roughly 1.5X larger geographically than the UK and with 50ish million fewer people. Roughly half the population of my state lives in one county. Yet the state gets the ultimate say of how voting resources are allocated and state governments tend to follow land apportion over population with the result of putting urban areas under severe time and resource constraints.

That’s why I’m okay with my district using voting machines, early voting, mail in voting, etc. Ultimately it means more people get to vote, even and especially people in very remote areas who don’t have access to polling locations. I’d say yes to more improvements, like more locations to vote and would ok paying poll workers to have it, not voting on work days, or making a national voting holiday/half day, more early voting opportunities, mobile voting apps so you can vote from your phone, etc. I love mail in ballots.

I’m not claiming one way is better than the other. It’s up to each nation to decide what works best for them given their circumstances and will. I’m just saying that the factors that led to the US choosing various election machineries were based on those same considerstions other nations face, and not some weird infatuation with technology or whatever. How those factors play out are unique to each nation so you can’t really fairly compare one with another.

I’m also saying the focus on the machines is a red herring to the issue of free and fair elections in practicality and the reality of what’s going on here. The real issue is an erosion of trust and bad faith toward democratic integrity.

I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but a legal representative for the Republican party recently testified before the Supreme Court that the only way Republicans can win is if people don’t vote because “politics is a zero sum game". They’re saying the quiet part out loud now. None of this is new. And so, Republicans when in control of offices have changed the rules or prevented necessary improvements to the vote process for years to do just that, stay in power. Questioning the integrity of the machines is an obfuscation to the real issue of election suppression. There is no credible evidence or instance of widespread fraud or error using machines, it’s mostly theoretical speculation by security experts who may or may not have their own agendas that may or may not align with election integrity.

And it truly doesn’t matter. Republicans will make the claim, any claim, to try to overturn the election anyway including elections conducted with paper and pencil. They will throw out whatever they can and see what sticks. It’s how they stay in power, they suppress and challenge the vote hoping to get votes discounted.

Under such bad faith conditions, you can see why it wouldn’t matter how the vote is conducted. They’d conduct themselves the same regardless.

I find your comment remarkable (and I say this with a sense of awe and envy) because it never occurred to you that all the people involved in setting the rules for and conducting the election have no ulterior motives other than making sure elections are robust, free, and fair. Your thinking didn’t consider dishonest and dishonorable intent toward the election itself, just that machines are problematic compared to paper and pencil because they are vulnerable to fraud and error. But so are paper and pencil to someone/group who intends to defraud an election and is desperate to cling to power.

Given the landscape here, it seems so incredibly and blissfully naive. Again, I’m not trying to insult your intelligence and I’m not saying you’re naive. Trust is a precious and wonderful thing. I’m saying I wish we were where you are now in that regard. I barely remember a time before there were not charges of fraud, tampering, suppression, disenfranchisement, etc accompanying every election. But I wasn’t old enough to vote then.

I hope that whatever election processes your nation uses now and in the future you don’t lose that trust and good faith between parties.

I also hope we can find a way back to it. It has been missed.

Thanks for your comment and your time with my very long response.