Guest Bob S said:
"The "counter" can look at a ballot, see no mark for any candadate and say "This person was confused; one for candidate A"."

Not so. Under the current situation, there's A LOT of people looking over shoulders, and the process has to go on objective criteria.

Now, there is a problem of interpretation that came to my attention this morning: "What about pregnant chads?"

A chad, you need to be advised, is the little piece of paper punched out of the vote-hole. What if it's only partially detached? What if it's only been pushed by the stylus and dented (pregnant chad)? These might be matters of opinion, but if (as I assume there are) there are rules set up in advance on how to treat such instances, it's objective.

Dave Oesterreich