Ghe point is that the automatic process tends to be very reliable and instantaneous while hand counts can be used as an auditing process. So machines that are easily auditable and have an inherent paper trail because thenvotes are on actual paper ballots are the best combination of steps for voting.
Auditable machines make ballot stuffing impossible.
They couldn’t even hand count an election of 127 people correctly. Imagine how big the errors would have been with thousands of votes.
The fact is that this isn’t being counted by full time well-trained accountants, but by temporary and on-call employees at best, and lots of them are retirees, who can afford not to have a full-time gig.
Hand counting requires more blind faith trust than a machine you can easily audit at any time.
It’s not just about the speed, it’s about an inhuman level of consistency and memory that the machine provides.
Ghe point is that the automatic process tends to be very reliable and instantaneous while hand counts can be used as an auditing process. So machines that are easily auditable and have an inherent paper trail because thenvotes are on actual paper ballots are the best combination of steps for voting.
Auditable machines make ballot stuffing impossible.
Counting by hand is fine. I see no value in the process being instantaneous. Especially not compared to the monetary cost and organizational overhead.
They couldn’t even hand count an election of 127 people correctly. Imagine how big the errors would have been with thousands of votes.
The fact is that this isn’t being counted by full time well-trained accountants, but by temporary and on-call employees at best, and lots of them are retirees, who can afford not to have a full-time gig.
Hand counting requires more blind faith trust than a machine you can easily audit at any time.
It’s not just about the speed, it’s about an inhuman level of consistency and memory that the machine provides.