There's always a danger in starting a post in the way that you did. Let's see what happens this time.Your post seems you have a poor understanding of election and media in general - lets look at point 4 in brief
The number of mail-in, drop-off ballots necessitated batching the ballots that were received. Opening these batches (in the presence of party scrutineers) is no different that dealing with any paper ballot system. There is also no reason that the counting, in these extraordinary circumstances, couldn't have been done prior to closure of the polls, if only starting on the morning of the vote." While I understand election rules that would prevent announcing any election results before the polls close, I'm at a loss as to why votes can't be counted as they are received (subject to litigation challenging the propriety of those particular votes, in which case they should be segregated), and then promptly announced following the close of the polls. See point 1."
In the Canadian system this would be insane from a security of the vote point of view. You put all votes in a sealed box. The seal is not broken until it is ready to be counted, and watched by witness of all parties involved.
You could modify the system- say have boxes for hour one then hour two etc but it means that the boxes could easily be tampered with as they are opened - if not then but at recounts. The cost of such a system would be logically more expensive for less certainty of the vote.
In short, you've told me nothing I haven't demonstrated I already know, failed to explain the relevance of your reference to Canadian electoral procedure, and in in the end raised nothing more than cost as reason not to do it. However, having decided to expand mail in voting, the states concerned had already committed to the cost consequences of their choice.
Red herring and unresponsive to the point I was making.Electronics would be way for counting in real time. However, electronic systems are easy to cheat, anyone in control of the software could change the count at anytime, You see your vote as going to x, but the computer transfer some of x (wherever could be believed ) to y if and only if y is actually lossing. Why cheat all the time too suspicious you only have to win by one vote after all (but dont have the computer program win by one vote, way too suspicious)
Not if the votes are controlled by batching, as you clumsily refer to.Stuffing ballot boxes is already a problem made very easy to do with continuous counts.
You were making a sophisticated point?To simplify
1. Election security and timely reporting cost money - more money when you want to introduce alternative ways of submitting ballots and when people take advantage of those opportunities at a significant level.1) continuous count are much more expensive to have any type of security.
2) even with the extra cost, they are much more likely to allow cheating.
3) The advantage of having instant gratification of a count would be minimal. The change of power does not happen til January - so there is no need for a result before then other than curiosity.
2. Not if you employ batching.
3. Timely election results are extremely important because elections are important. A lot can happen between an election and the release of results, including many more opportunties to tinker with ballots and/or reporting.
In short, yep, the usual thing happened when someone opens their post the way you did. You proved your thinking to be far less disciplined and sophisticated than you presumed.