Add support for write-in candidates

[ArendPeter]

[masiarek]

Write-in discussion document:

• https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zzHHTovOnpnLxzjMSqHHzLPsZzvqraSQk1IJorRTiA4/edit?tab=t.0

What kind of test cases do we need?
How are we testing this? Positive and negative test cases... - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UenzvLEgLj8cjHXKS1E7tJq7RQz34jeKr3U4nyleYJ4/edit?tab=t.0

[jacksonloper]

As mentioned in the goole doc above, grouping write-in candidates (e.g. if one person writes JFK and someone else writes John Kennedy) is a tricky part of any write-in support.

In my point of view at this moment, it would be nice to provide election admins a service that helps them with this grouping process. In fact, I think (though could easily be persuaded) that it would be worth it to help them with auto-grouping even if the admins start to group write-ins before polls close, and then want to auto-group unprocessed candidates later when more votes come in.

If we want to provide that "full-service" to the election admins, we would need to decide on an algorithm for taking

• a pre-existing set of approved write-in candidates (e.g., "John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Jr.") and their aliases (e.g., "JFK") and
• a set of unprocessed write-in names (e.g. "John Kennedy")

and yielding a new best-effort set of write-in candidates with aliases. #983 offers a proposal for the algorithm and a testable UI that you could try it to look for corner cases (building on existing name_match_testing from @mikefranze). There would also be another component to this of course which allows admins fine-grained control over exactly what the groupings are (and which are considered "approved" and will go to the full results page, e.g., admins might want to exclude "names" that are just profanities).

Is this the direction we want to go?

[github-actions]

🤖 Auto-Unassign Warning

Hi @mikefranze!

This issue hasn't had activity in the past 5 weeks.

Please add a comment using the below template (even if you have a pull request).

1. Progress: "What is the current status of your project? What have you completed and what is left to do?"
2. Blockers: "Difficulties or errors encountered."
3. Availability: "How much time will you have in the coming weeks to work on this issue?"
4. ETA: "When do you expect this issue to be completed?"
5. Pictures (optional): "Add any pictures of the visual changes made to the site so far."

If you need help, please request for assistance on the #bettervoting slack channel.

This task will auto-unassign in 1 week unless a comment is added.