I still cannot fathom why anyone would allow a machine to touch any vote. How hard is it to mark a piece of paper, put it in a box then have someone count it?
I understand the theory and logic behind it; machine counting is faster and scales up well.
But we have seen dishonesty, apparently for years, and we have seen the worst ticket in history without a hope smash every record when he couldn't even get 50 people to a rally.
Machine counting is not the future, at least not the near future, if they want anyone to have trust in the election.
That's the thing with elections though trust is the single key factor, counting for a few extra hours isn't even slightly a reason to do anything to lose trust.
I know it's down to each state, but there needs to be a push to dump any machines in at least federal elections.
But, if ol' Joe gets in he'll probably push to make em mandatory to reduce the risk of the Coof or some such crap.
Because when you go from 500 people to 500,000 people, and are dealing with 1,000x more ballots, you have precisely 1,000x more people to conduct that count with. 1,000x more people to draw from to supervise, to act as watchers, and so on.
Literally zero reason to hand the counting over to hackable, pre-fraud-programmable machines. Because one of these days they'll learn to not be retarded when they program in the fraud.
If you need 5 good watchers to handle 5,000 voters, then you need 5,000 good watchers when you have 5,000,000 voters. But guess what. Even though you have 1,000x more votes to count and need 1,000x more good watchers, you have a population which is 1,000x larger. That population includes a proportional number of people appropriate to the task.
The only way this could make sense is if the printer is before the scanner part. Then it wouldn't know whether printing a Biden would invalidate the vote or not.
My confidence that they put the printer before the scanner? Absolute zero.
It's not hard for 20-30 people to count one small precinct or voting district. The UK still does it all by hand, our first real voter fraud case wasn't too long ago because of... Mail in ballots.
Not even that just have people count, stack em in piles of 100 say for each candidate, someone checks it, someone else can check it if they like. Everyone agrees the result and publish.
I still cannot fathom why anyone would allow a machine to touch any vote. How hard is it to mark a piece of paper, put it in a box then have someone count it?
I understand the theory and logic behind it; machine counting is faster and scales up well.
But we have seen dishonesty, apparently for years, and we have seen the worst ticket in history without a hope smash every record when he couldn't even get 50 people to a rally.
Machine counting is not the future, at least not the near future, if they want anyone to have trust in the election.
That's the thing with elections though trust is the single key factor, counting for a few extra hours isn't even slightly a reason to do anything to lose trust.
I know it's down to each state, but there needs to be a push to dump any machines in at least federal elections.
But, if ol' Joe gets in he'll probably push to make em mandatory to reduce the risk of the Coof or some such crap.
It shouldn't even be down to each state. That was a big mistake.
They can separate their representatives, but the Presidency is inherently a federal position and needs to be treated as a federal election
Human tabulation scale fine. Want to know why?
Because when you go from 500 people to 500,000 people, and are dealing with 1,000x more ballots, you have precisely 1,000x more people to conduct that count with. 1,000x more people to draw from to supervise, to act as watchers, and so on.
Literally zero reason to hand the counting over to hackable, pre-fraud-programmable machines. Because one of these days they'll learn to not be retarded when they program in the fraud.
People are a problem too, and finding accurate watchers becomes more difficult too sadly.
False.
If you need 5 good watchers to handle 5,000 voters, then you need 5,000 good watchers when you have 5,000,000 voters. But guess what. Even though you have 1,000x more votes to count and need 1,000x more good watchers, you have a population which is 1,000x larger. That population includes a proportional number of people appropriate to the task.
The only way this could make sense is if the printer is before the scanner part. Then it wouldn't know whether printing a Biden would invalidate the vote or not.
My confidence that they put the printer before the scanner? Absolute zero.
The US population was above 220 million when it was still all being done by hand, with results usually done by midnight.
It's not hard for 20-30 people to count one small precinct or voting district. The UK still does it all by hand, our first real voter fraud case wasn't too long ago because of... Mail in ballots.
Not even that just have people count, stack em in piles of 100 say for each candidate, someone checks it, someone else can check it if they like. Everyone agrees the result and publish.
No need for technology for the simplest of tasks.