• silence7@slrpnk.netOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    The normal action with machine counts is to randomly select a subsample and hand count those to validate. It’s just slow, expensive, and error-prone to hand-count really huge numbers of ballots with lots of offices on them. And that’s the whole point of this decision — to make it so that people don’t have a reliable count of votes the next day, allowing the opportunity to toss out the voters decisions entirely.

    • bloodfart
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      If hand counting is so error prone then why do we hand count during recounts and as you said during spot checks?

      I don’t buy it.

      Perhaps support for hand counting is partly coming from people hoping it will cause chaos. I don’t think it will based on my own limited experience in elections and weather it will or won’t, even the stopped clock of people who want to prevent and slow down the count tells the right time twice a day.

      Why is it such a big deal to know the next day who the winner is? They don’t take office until the next calendar year.

      • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        Because you can do it well at small scale at modest expense. It’s expensive to do well and fast for ballots with lots of offices and in large numbers.

        This decision, unaccompanied by money to hire people, basically guarantees chaos.