F the "I-voted" stickers. I don't even see risk limiting audits that were supposed to be done

[lostnfound]

For the first 16 years of voting, I knew how votes were counted. By hand, by humans, by neighbors, in plain sight. Sometimes my mother helped.

For the last 24+ years, I’m left with the annoyance of an evolving parade of hanging chads, memory card glitches (Volusia error of negative 16,022 votes), machines with no paper trails, voting machines with paper trails that count bar codes reversed from what the readable text on the ballot says it is, voting machine companies owned or led by GOP BIG donors/fundraisers (with the two major “competitors” having fraudster felons and the Urosevich brothers as founders), reports of ‘vote flipping’, ‘reluctant bush responders’ to explain large exit poll discrepancies, and a candidate who announces he has all the votes he needs despite laughable rallies.

What a joke. They placate us with “I Voted!” stickers.

All of this COULD be fixed. It hasn’t been.

But at least.. wait for it…
Risk limiting audits. Statistics. Math. Evidence. Proof. Where are they?? In Pennsylvania, risk-limiting aunits are mandatory, and so is 2% statewide statistical recounts. The Pennsylvania risk limiting audit was started with fanfare on November 18th, with a deadline for reporting to the state by November 25th. “Both will be completed before any votes are certified.”. On their website, it is still crickets. I am not looking for any miracles, but at least do what you say you are going to do, and report it honestly.

Pennsylvania starts a hand recount for a senate race, and according to this subtly bitter message from Philadelphia County, they were told to stop just 2 hours before they would have finished. Why? YES I KNOW, Casey conceded. But was there no curiosity to see where the chips would land? The GOP succeeded in throwing out undated absentees, but there still would have been value in seeing the outcome.

What a joke. But hey, I’ve got my “I voted!” Sticker. And the photo of me and my family holding our stickers around an “I Voted” sign outside a polling place. A memory of attending a rally of the First Female President, quite intentionally carrying in my heart the beautiful soul of my mother (deceased now for 40 years) who took me behind the curtain of the voting booth in the 1960s and the belief in democracy of my father (once a small-town Republican mayor proud of bringing city water to his town back in the 1950s, who became a Democrat in his later years). Mom, Dad? Your daughter lived long enough to see the first woman president.

Oh wait, no she didn’t. But she did live long enough to see The Collapse.

[Think. Again.]

1. I agree...

You might have noticed a strong attempt online to discredit the idea of verifying any first-count results, a lot of the posts even going so far as to try to personally intimidate pro-verification posters by calling them childish names and insinuating they are idiots or worse.

But I agree with you, verifying complex counts, that are coming from multiple sources, in such an important election is just basic common sense.

I fear those who are trying so hard to have us NOT do recounts are trying to keep something very sinister hidden.

[Ohioboy]

4. I agree with you

It wouldn't hurt to verify.

[BonnieJW]

7. I am with you

Too many fingers point to problems

[Clouds Passing]

13. Or the recounts are very too expensive

Or handcounts are more inaccurate than machine counts

[MichMan]

15. Correct on both counts

[Clouds Passing]

18. ...

[Think. Again.]

22. See post #20

[Think. Again.]

20. Protecting our Democracy through military preparedness seems to cost quite a lot too.

And verification of first-count results through hand-counted recounts is the only way to ensure accuracy.

[onecaliberal]

36. They did the same to me regarding garland.

[Think. Again.]

40. Yeah, it's a tactic they use a lot.

It's supposed to intimidate us.

[onecaliberal]

43. Hoping we don't see what they ARE supporting here calling themselves Dems.

[Think. Again.]

46. Yes, and let's be clear...

They are supporting that The U.S. does NOT verify the first-count election results.

I wonder why?

[onecaliberal]

48. Same reason they want a child rapist in the White House instead of the most qualified person to ever run.

[Think. Again.]

60. The give-away is that they are fighting SO HARD (and seem so well-prepared)...

...against the simple solution of doing whatever is possible to ensure our elections are accurate.

[Abnredleg]

64. The give-away is that they are fighting so hard

Despite the “bullet ballot” theory quickly falling apart and despite being unable to respond to links of certification and audit processes and results with nothing but vague arguments.

[Think. Again.]

68. I understand that you believe we should never, ever question first-counts of any elections.

Thank you for your input.

[Abnredleg]

73. We absolutely are in agreement about questioning election results

Which is why we have such elaborate post-election certification processes. Which you continue to ignore.

[onecaliberal]

75. :

[Think. Again.]

77. My position is that those existing processes are not nearly enough.

[MichMan]

2. The Pennsylvania Senate recount was not done by hand

In Philadelphia on Wednesday, two-person teams each operated one of 14 high-speed scanners to process the hundreds of thousands of ballots the city needed to retabulate.

State law dictates that during a recount, ballots be counted using a different method than was used to count them initially. Philadelphia achieved this by organizing its batches of ballots on metal racks with signs that indicated which machine those batches needed to be scanned on.

A worker would retrieve a batch of ballots, which are kept in a sealed file box, and bring it back to their machine. The workers then cut the seal, removed the ballots, and tapped the stack of ballots on the table like a deck of cards to ensure they were all lined up and would not cause a jam in the machine. Once the scanning was done, they put the ballots back into the box, applied a new seal, and returned the box to a pile with other completed batches.

https://www.spotlightpa.org/news/2024/11/pennsylvania-election-recount-senate-bob-casey-dave-mccormick/

[hueymahl]

3. Either eliminate machine voting or open-source the software

The fact big corporations control a closed source system for our voting is unacceptable to any functioning democracy.

[reACTIONary]

6. Open source software would not help...

... without auditing the entire supply chain. And even then, the sore losers would still claim that someone altered something somewhere.

What can and does help is certification of the machine itself, and an audible paper trail with a secure chain of custody.

Which, in most cases, we already have.

[Think. Again.]

9. An auditable paper-trail is worthless if we don't do sufficient audits (recounts) on the papers.

Which we don't.

[reACTIONary]

14. You are right! And what does that have to do with....

... open source software?

In the absence of an audit, would you be happy with the election results simply because you could download the (presumed) software from git-hub? I think, again, not.

[Think. Again.]

23. Why would my downloading the software matter?

I'm not an election watchdog group that would know how to compare the "registered" open source code to the activity of the machines in use, MY downloading it would be silly.

[reACTIONary]

69. Yes, that would be silly....

That's my point! I'm replying to a post that suggests that we "Either eliminate machine voting or open-source the software".

The point of open source software is that you (or anyone else) can download it and look at it. And, as you state, for most of us, that would be silly. In fact, it wouldn't be much use for anyone to do so, because, without physical access to the machine and a rigorous chain of custody in the supply chain, it wouldn't prove anything.

And even then, the conspiracy minded would not be satisfied.

[Think. Again.]

74. The point of open source software is so the activity of any given machine...

...can be checked for activity that is not supposed to be happening (the presnce of any code that is not the offically accepted code).

Yes, the machines would have to be checked by officially accepted personal, such as bi-partisan election watchdog groups or, most importantly, the Federal Election Commission.

(Silly name-calling doesn't work)

[Abnredleg]

78. We've discussed this before

Voting software and equipment is certified by the Federal and State governments, to include auditing the entire supply chain. There are base images to which software can be compared to.

[Think. Again.]

80. No, the software is proprietary, it can not be looked at by anyone except 2 labs.

[Abnredleg]

85. The labs are acting as agents of the Government

and the companies waive their rights for certification. The source code is not revealed to the public but would be available for forensic purposes. Any vulnerabilities that are discovered , however, are made public. That’s how certification works for sensitive software, because how else would you be able to demonstrate if software is safe and not altered, which is the whole point of certification in the first place.

Proprietary does not mean no one can see it, it just means it can’t be shared with competitors. Proprietary data is commonly examined in court cases and there are extensive procedures in place to keep it secure.

[Think. Again.]

87. Yes, those 2 labs look at the software to be sure it is what it's supposed to be...

...before the machnes leave the vendor and then are exposed to who knows who.

No one is allowed to view the active software in any machine during any election, an apparently there are a LOT of people fighting hard against the idea of any verification of what that software does during the elections.

[Abnredleg]

91. They look at the entire chain of custody

And there are many layers of physical and cyber security to ensure nothing is altered. Software that handles sensitive data (financial, medical, military etc.) has been around for decades and there are extensive protections that have been developed to protect all aspects of deployment. You are going to have to provide examples of how these measures are insufficient in order to advance your argument.

[Think. Again.]

92. Yeah, that's why major banks, federal agencies, etc, never get hacked...

...and why stolen voting machines themselves don't ever show up on ebay.

[Abnredleg]

99. Their equipment is not airgapped

Everyone keeps talking about hacking but ignore the fact that you need access in order to hack. Voting equipment is not connected to the Internet except for a small handful of jurisdictions, and therefore all the examples you keep bringing up are irrelevant. All the agencies you mentioned secure their most sensitive equipment by air gapping them. They can’t keep their networks completely secure so they go for defense in layers.

[Think. Again.]

101. Well then I agree with them...

Let's do the same "layers" in verifying our election results, because obviously no digital device is safe from manipulation.

[Abnredleg]

104. The layers are there

Or did you fail to read the part about layers of physical and cyber security?

[Think. Again.]

108. But still you don't think we double-check our numbers.

Weird.

[reACTIONary]

86. The activity that is supposed to be happening...

.... is that a vote for candidate X shows up in the total as a vote for candidate X. It is that simple. You don't need to look at the code to know what the code is supposed to do. All you have to do is perform an audit against the paper trail. Which, to various degrees, is being done, where warranted or required by law. Open source software won't help with that.

[Think. Again.]

89. Audits are only done on a portion of the results.

[Abnredleg]

93. Sampling is sufficient

Given true randomness and sample size. The science behind this has been around for centuries.

[Think. Again.]

97. If all that were "sufficient", why are discrepencies still found?

[Abnredleg]

103. Human error

If you read the audits, they admit hand counts result in human error. There are usually discrepancies, but they are usually minor and don’t change the results. Sample size will account for this error, which is why sample size for audits and recounts will usually increase during close elections. Audits are designed to catch significant discounts that change results, which they do good job of.

[Think. Again.]

105. Do they? How often has THAT happened????

[reACTIONary]

102. Yes, a random sample...

You can examine, audit, recount, spot check all you want, over and over, and someone is not going to be satisfied. For the simple reason that their candidate lost. All of this should be done only to the degree warranted by actual evidence of fraud. Not simply because "my candidate didn't win".

If "the powers that be" were able to credibly fake an election, they would be able to credibly fake a recount.

[Think. Again.]

107. Good point.

[MichMan]

111. Surprisingly, when our side wins an election, the results are always deemed to be accurate, safe, and secure. n/t

[lostnfound]

115. Deemed by who? Not by me. Nt

[MichMan]

119. What elections that Democrats won do you think were stolen? n/t

[Think. Again.]

8. Open Source software should be mandatory...

Open source would allow for spot-checks at any time before, during, or after the election to be conducted by whichever watchdog agency, public or non-profit or whatever, to take a snapsot of the active programs and compare that to the open-source "registered" programs to be sure they machnes are doing only what they are supposed to be doing with no other source-code present.

Everyone, anywhere would be able to compare the "active" source-code to the open source code that is publicly available.

[reACTIONary]

95. Open source software would not be helpful in the activity....

... you propose. The software does not reside in the voting machine. A compiled and linked binary image is what resides in the machine. The software is linked against other software libraries, that don't originate with the company providing the voting machine application. It is compiled into machine instructions, which are different for every different processor that might be used. Even then, when the image is loaded, the loader has to change (relocate) the machine addresses to account for other programs that may have been loaded.

And anything that "spot checks" a "snapshot" and anything that takes a "snapshot" could be corrupted to provide the "right" results.

[Think. Again.]

100. I believe the phrase "software" understandably covers all that.

[reACTIONary]

106. Not "open source" software...

... That term applies to the source code itself being made public. As explained elsewhere, the source code is already being examined. The machines are already being certified. Reasonable, even beyond reasonable, measures are already being taken to ensure the results after the fact.

"Open source" code would not add any value to that.

[Think. Again.]

110. Open source code of voting machines (and tabulators) would allow...

...checks on the software running the voting machines, checks we are not currently able to do.

[paleotn]

5. Hand count and take the time necessary to do it correctly, accurately. Expense be damned.

It's important enough to wait and I'm willing to help pay for it with tax dollars. For a country that spends billions on attack ads and related bullshit, of course we can afford it. And taking a few days to weeks to decide who won is perfectly fine. No technological vulnerabilities apply. We should to. Make it law.

[MichMan]

11. Hand counts will have significantly more errors than machines.

Academic research study at Rice University showed hand counts were correct only 58% of the time

An Examination of the Auditability of Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) Ballots
Stephen N. Goggin and Michael D. Byrne
Department of Psychology
Rice University, MS-25
Houston, TX 77005 USA


With heightened concerns over the security of electronic voting machines, 37 states now require some form of voter verification mechanism that could then be used in a recount. This usually takes the form of a Voter-Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT). Unfortunately, little is known about the usability of VVPATs for recount purposes. The current study examines the speed and accuracy of hand recounts of VVPATs. Participants counted completed VVPAT ballots which were based on those actually in use in DREs today.

Two races from of a spool of 120 ballots were manually counted, which includes separating ballots from the spool and removing rejected ballots. This task was time-consuming and prone to high error rates, with only 57.5% of participants’ counts providing the correct election results. Furthermore, ballot rejection rate interacted with the closeness of the race being counted; high rejection rate
paired with a small margin of victory resulted in a particularly high error rate. This experiment raises serious concerns about the viability of conducting manual recounts or audits using current VVPAT technology.

https://accurate-voting.rice.edu/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/evt07-goggin.pdf

[Wiz Imp]

17. Exactly. Why don't people get this? Hand counting is far less accurate than machine counting.

[MichMan]

24. Some would still say those were rigged too

[paleotn]

28. Always? All hand counting procedures? All of them?

You sure about that? Got evidence other than one particular study?

[Think. Again.]

42. I wonder why they didn't do the same study to test machine accuracy.

[Wiz Imp]

44. It's not one study, it's all of them and there have been lots of them

And yes, pretty much every time machine counting will be more accurate. Anything the relies on human beings counting large numbers of items is subject to significant human error which is not going to happen in machine counts.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/nov/12/diamond-and-silk/hand-counting-ballots-is-not-more-accurate-than-ma/

https://coloradosun.com/2024/11/11/hand-counting-votes-machine-counting-accuracy/

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/hand-counting-votes-proven-bad-idea

https://theconversation.com/paper-ballots-are-good-but-accurately-hand-counting-them-all-is-next-to-impossible-211989

Do a google search and will will find literally thousands of links to articles/stories all saying the same thing - hand counting ballots is less reliable and would be a bad idea. I could not find a single link (other than right wing conspiracy theorists) to anyone involved in elections who though hand counting was a good idea.

[paleotn]

53. Articles and stories. That's not evidence. That's articles and stories.

Usually by people who aren't experts regurgitating the same data source(s). Your Brennan Center link references the same Rice study. Where are the others? Is the consensus among experts based on evidence? Give me that, and I'll change my view. Otherwise, my hypothesis is as good as yours.

[Wiz Imp]

57. I give up

The links I posted referred to other studies and had plenty of quotes from actual experts that all agreed hand counting ballots would be a disaster. If you refuse to accept reality, then so be it, but I am throwing reality in your face by explaining the truth if only you would choose to accept it.

[paleotn]

67. In my defense, I looked at only the Brennan Center article

which referenced the Rice study. There is other data showing that hand counts can be error prone. No doubt when you've got to get all those ballots counted by such and such a time because god forbid the media doesn't announce a winner less than 24 hours from the polls close. A problem the articles touched on and a problem that can be fixed.

That's not the whole story on hand counting however. If done correctly and allotted enough time, accuracy may be substantially higher. It apparently is among many of our western allies. Otherwise, we've stuck with a much smaller number of weak points, machines and their software, making results far easier to compromise.

I'm not "married" to hand counting. But I am worried about critical weak points in the process.

[Wiz Imp]

94. The only major country I've found that does all hand counting is France and there are many

reasons why it can work there but not in the US but the big one is that it is a single contest. You're casting a single vote (or possibly ranking the candidates in order of preference (their version of ranked choice voting) - but you're only voting for one race like President. In France, they don't vote for legislature races at the same time they vote for President). The larger the ballot (more races being voted on) significantly increases the chances for human error when hand counting. Another thing you don't address is that hand counting can be astronomically expensive - I think several of links I posted mentioned this. So in addition to the introduction of human error in counting & a significant increase in the time it takes to count votes, the expense is prohibitive. It is for all those reasons that you would be hard-pressed to find a single election expert in favor of hand counting (except in the special limited situations where it is already used).

In France, the election was a single contest. Voters selected a candidate card and stuffed it in an envelope. Those cards were then placed into piles for each candidate and counted. “It’s certainly easier than the U.S., where there are often many more races you are dealing with,” said David Levine, elections integrity fellow at the Alliance for Securing Democracy at the German Marshall Fund.

Elections in France are centralized. This means the rules for the election are the same no matter where you live, although there are slight variations in when the polls close. The Ministry of the Interior makes technical preparations for elections and develops and distributes ballots. This is very different from the U.S., where elections are decentralized. Counties and municipalities in the U.S. administer elections based on 50 state laws and then report results to states which then certify results and pass them along to Congress.

A single time zone and fewer votes can speed up the process. France only has one time zone, while the U.S. has six time zones (four main ones.) About 35 million French cast ballots, while about 158 million Americans voted in the general presidential election.

France does not have voting by mail, except for a very small sliver of people who are in pre-trial detention or in jail, Levine said. In the U.S., it takes several days to go through the process dictated by state laws to receive, verify and count millions of mail ballots. Under varying state laws, voters often have a certain number of days to correct defects on their mail ballot, such as if they forgot to sign the return envelope.

[Think. Again.]

90. There are also many computer and elections experts who disagree with you.

[Wiz Imp]

96. Name them

[Think. Again.]

25. How would we know how many errors machne-counts have if we don't verify through recounts?

[paleotn]

30. Stop using logic! They don't like logic.

Interferes with their preconceptions.

[Think. Again.]

33. Logic is all I have because I refuse to stoop to their attempts at silly name-calling.

[paleotn]

34. Wise. But I'm not above silly name-calling.

A character flaw I suppose.

[paleotn]

26. While interesting, I wouldn't take one paper's results as universal gospel.

That amounts to finding one study that confirms your preconceived notions and running with it as ultimate truth. Good luck with that.

Have the author's design and results been replicated? There are procedures and statistical methods that make hand counts far more accurate than what was performed by inexperienced undergrad students in this study. I don't see much mention of that. So, we're left with only their experimental design which may be flawed and certainly doesn't account for all best practice methods and procedures used to ensure accurate hand counts...the world over. Oh! But a caveat that older, experienced election works are older and more experienced...but then again....old....thus prone to more errors than young whipper snappers...who aren't....old.

[MichMan]

39. Fine, you must be able to produce multiple studies showing that hand counting is much more accurate than machines

You might be right, but I haven't seen any proof of any. Let's see them

[paleotn]

58. And I've not seen enough proof that they're not.

Honestly, it may be something that's under researched and needs more work. Certainly something as important as elections. If I'm wrong, that's cool. We then have to protect electronic systems like they're made of gold. Because, figuratively, they are.

[lostnfound]

116. Not 100% hand recounts. Just DO the statistical sampling / risk limiting audits, and publish them. And...

If you’re most of the way through an entire Senate race recount, finish it and give the voters what they paid for. Cutting it off 2 hours before you’re done reeks.

[Kaleva]

52. Hand counts are less accurate then machine counts

[paleotn]

71. Based on what?

Hand counts can be quite accurate when allotted enough time to do the work properly. And guess what....compromising a large enough number of election workers to compromise the result is a heck of a lot harder than monkeying with software.

[Kaleva]

113. See post #11

Is there any evidence that the software was hacked? Not liking the results of an election isn't proof.

"Kamala Harris advisers: Internal polling never showed VP ahead"

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/11/27/kamala-harris-advisers-internal-polling/76626278007/

[Farmer-Rick]

10. There is no way to verify the vote counts

A few states have a few very weak safeguards but mostly there is no accountability or method of routine verification for accuracy.

It's interesting that countries that use electronic voting have issues about accuracy of the count. Accusations of vote rigging are frequently called out in those countries.

Our voting system is just like Venezuela's (except in a few cases concerning mail in ballots) only we have 50 different versions of it. I find it hilarious to see people here get all upset about Venezuela's vote count. Well guys and gals, we have the same system.

I don't believe for a moment the vote count for Trump and Harris was accurate. The vote counting accountability disappeared after W stole the election from Gore. It has never been accurate again. Yes, sometimes Dems win with the rigged counting. But not when it really counts.

It's really kind of useless to call a contested election unless the party who contests it also has a state majority in the House. To get the opposition party in the state majority, Gerrymandering has to be made illegal.

So, I gave up pointing out how badly our votes are counted years ago. No one really cares. It's all a political game for a bunch of oligarchs. We haven't had a true democracy for a very long time.

[reACTIONary]

12. Counties are responsible for the audits....

.... the audit is to be done before the county certifies the results and sends them to the states. A few days ago, around five counties were still outstanding. Those that have submitted the results would have completed their audit.

The delays are mainly due to litigation and the expansion of mail in and provisional ballots. These factors actually improve participation and the integrity of the election.

Pennsylvania election certification not complete at deadline, but close
https://www.wesa.fm/politics-government/2024-11-27/pennsylvania-election-certification

[Think. Again.]

27. Exactly why we need recounts.

[reACTIONary]

83. PN requires "recounts", or, at least....

.... a "security audit". The OP is complaining that "the" security audit isn't being done. From the news article I posted, there are multiple security audits, each conducted by the counties before they certify their results and turn them over to the state. Since there are multiple counties that have certified their results, there are multiple counties that have completed their security audits. By the time the state certifies the state wide totals, all of the state wide security audits will have been done.

The truth is that no amount of election security, audits, recounts, etc., etc. Is going satisfy the conspiracy minded amongst us. They are feeling butt-hurt that their candidate lost, and nothing will change that. Their candidate is going to remain the loser, and they are going to remain butt-hurt.

[Think. Again.]

84. Correct, we need an election system that fool-proof, hence recounts.

[NoMoreRepugs]

16. 2024 and the United States can't figure out how to have foolproof elections?

I’m sorry, as a cynical 75 year old I simply CANNOT believe that. It costs too much? Are you for real? We are talking about the fate of our children.

[Parzival72]

19. Does Anyone Believe The GOP would NOT Cheat?

Does anyone think the same people who pushed the fake electors and the Big Lie and attacked the Capitol on Jan 6th would NOT cheat in any way they could?

[TomCADem]

21. Great. Now progressives are sharing MAGA type conspiracies.

The OP could just as easily appear on a QAnon message board. The answer is pretty straight forward if you look at the process. PA has an audit process that requires a larger and larger sample size if a race is close, which culminates in a recount if an election is within 0.5%, which is the way things should be run.

In PA, if a race is really close, then it automatically goes to a recount.

https://www.spotlightpa.org/news/2024/11/pennsylvania-election-audit-certification-recount-explainer/

[Think. Again.]

31. Trying to scare people away from common sense election verification ....

...by calling them silly names doesn't actually work.

How could we know if the election is actually within 0.5% if we don't recount to verify the first-count results?

[TomCADem]

41. Doesn't PA Follow The Election Verification Process You Describe?

It seems that if the initial canvass is within a very small percentage, why do a random sample where the margin is within the margin of error? If you use a sample size that is too small, then you could just get a different result that will just lead to further suspicion without truly verifying the result.

You say: “How could we know if the election is actually within 0.5% if we don't recount to verify the first-count results?’

Well, haven’t you just described PA’s statutory process? The closer the election results in the initial canvass, the larger the sample size used until you use a recount for very close elections as your audit process. That sounds pretty common sense to me.

[Think. Again.]

50. I'll try to be more clear...

If we don't do recounts on all first-count results, we can not know if those results are actually within 0.5%, which is the only time a recount is currently triggered.

In other words, it should not matter if a race is close, because we are not verifying if the race is close in the first place.

[TomCADem]

61. Your Post Is The Opposite of the OP, Which Was Asking Where is the Normal Risk Limiting Audit...

…which uses a random statistical sample, which I also see as fine in races that are not close. The OP was complaining about the fact that a risk limiting audit was not done in PA, and the answer is that they are going straight to a recount.

You are saying that there should always be a full recount, but the answer to that is that full recount is time consuming and would delay the results of an election, which also gives rise to suspicion. The initial count is usually based on a scan of the ballots, which is fast and accurate. However, most states then do a hand count of a random sample to verify that there are not any errors. Of course, in a very very close race, you need to do a full recount because if you are within the margin of error, your random sample could indicate a different result.

Folks should do some public observation for the Democratic Party or even better volunteer as a poll worker to understand the process, because doing a random risk limiting sample of a very close race as suggested in the OP and doing full recounts before certifications of all races as you suggest both have their pros and cons.

[Think. Again.]

65. Yes, my post (that you are ar referring to) is not a direct response to the OP, correct.

Also, why would you trust a "not-close" machine count over a "close" machine count?

[Wiz Imp]

47. There are processes in place to verify the machine counts are accurate

They don't involve hand counts because those are NOT accurate. That's not according to one study. That's according to every single election expert in the country.

[Think. Again.]

51. Oh, "there are processes", nothing to see here.

[Wiz Imp]

63. Congratulations - you're on the same side as Diamond & Sylk. You must be so proud.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/nov/12/diamond-and-silk/hand-counting-ballots-is-not-more-accurate-than-ma/

Our ruling
A Diamond and Silk Instagram post said "paper ballots and hand counting never breaks down."

Hand-counting is prone to human error, as ballot counters can misread choices or accidentally record the wrong result. Ballot tabulating machines are tested for high accuracy and have a far lower error rate than hand-counting.

Although there were isolated incidents of machine malfunctions during the 2024 election, the vast majority of voting systems worked as intended.

We rate the claim False.

[Think. Again.]

66. Yeah, the personal attacks don't work.

[Wiz Imp]

79. That wasn't a personal attack

Just a statement of fact. I'm trying to be nice. But I guess I should just give up. There's only so much one can do as far as presenting facts to someone who refuses to listen. If somebody is so steadfast in their refusal to see reality, then there is likely nothing that can be done to burst through that bubble of denial.

[Think. Again.]

82. Saying "you're on the same side as Diamond & Sylk."

...to a member of DU is obviously a personal attack.

I usually just don't read past such rudeness so that type of personal attack doesn't work.

[Fiendish Thingy]

37. How else can one avoid painful emotions of an election loss, but with an irrational, evidence free conspiracy theory?

I have an alternate theory, supported by as much evidence as the others:

Somehow, probably with the help of Elon Musk, MTG figured out how to reverse the Jewish Space Lasers so that they flipped Harris votes to Trump votes.

Thanks, Tom for your rational (although I fear futile) effort to inject reality into this kooky nonsense.

[Silent Type]

29. There have been audits. For example, "Hand-count election audit confirms Trump's victory in Georgia." 11/20/24.

"A hand-count audit of Georgia’s presidential election reported miniscule discrepancies from the machine count, confirming President-elect Donald Trump’s victory over Vice President Kamala Harris.

"The results of the manual review released Wednesday showed 11 more votes for Trump and six fewer for Harris out of nearly 750,000 ballots reviewed by election officials across the state."

https://www.ajc.com/politics/hand-count-audit-of-georgia-election-confirms-trumps-win-over-harris/KMHVLZOH7ZAOVMSDMK7E65H4KY/

[Think. Again.]

32. Only 750,000?

[Silent Type]

35. Trust the science. That's a huge sample size out of 5.3 Million voters.

[Think. Again.]

38. That's only around a one in 7 chance of catching anything major anywhere.

[Abnredleg]

49. No - that's almost a 100% chance

to catch large scale fraud, assuming the sample is random.

https://tools4dev.org/resources/how-to-choose-a-sample-size/#:~:text=Most%20statisticians%20agree%20that%20the,to%20survey%20all%20of%20them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination

[Think. Again.]

54. A 100% chance of catching machine miscounts would be accomplished only through...

...non-machine recounts.

[Abnredleg]

59. Here's the NC final audit, which includes hand recounts

Of sample ballots.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/dl.ncsbe.gov/State_Board_Meeting_Docs/2024-11-26/Canvass/Post_Election_Audit_Report_2024_General.pdf

You really need to a develop an understanding of sampling and audits. You don’t need a 100% hand count - a random selection of sufficient size will produce accurate results.

[Think. Again.]

62. Gee, that's odd...

The NC Audit report says that the handcounts were 100% accurate in 177 out of 200 counts.

And yet...

Post #11 posts a study that shows handcounts are only accurate 58% of the time.

Weird.

[Abnredleg]

72. Not if you read the report

They’re not handcounting ballots filled out by the voter , but rather VVPAT receipts which are not the actual ballot but rather a summary printed out by thermal printers on large rolls. You just have to look at the photos in the report to understand how difficult a hand count would be. The NC audit, on the other hand, hand counts the actual ballot, which is a much simpler process.

[Think. Again.]

76. I agree, hand recounts are simple and should be done.

[MichMan]

88. Parsing the data in the NC hand recount audit results is interesting

Minor differences between the hand count and the machine count are not unusual for the
following reasons:

• The machine did not count a selection made by a check mark or X, or where the bubble
or box was very lightly shaded by the voter.

• The voter did not fill in the write-in oval but wrote a candidate's name on the write-in
line.

• Human error during the hand count.

More than 50% of the errors were attributed to "Human Error in the Hand Count" meaning the machine results were most likely correct in the first place. That means the hand counting process actually produced more errors than it found.

[Abnredleg]

45. NC also does handcounts for their audit

Here’s a link to the final report - good explanation on how they verify the vote.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/dl.ncsbe.gov/State_Board_Meeting_Docs/2024-11-26/Canvass/Post_Election_Audit_Report_2024_General.pdf

[Wiz Imp]

55. The level of denial here is mind blowing

I never thought I'd see that here. I mean, every single "argument" people are making was made by the Trump election denialists in 2020. And what did we do? We laughed at them and called them delusional for refusing to accept reality. Yet now, people here are absolutely certain that those same conspiracies that were laughable when brought up by the MAGAs in 2020 are 100% true this time. {sigh}

[Fish700]

98. Our country is boned. Even a big chunk of Democrats don't think the US has free and fair elections base on conspiracy

Last edited Sun Dec 1, 2024, 04:19 PM - Edit history (1)

theories.

Out enemies have won. Congrats to Alex Jones, Vladimir Putin, and Xi Xi Jinping. Controlling the information sphere is an easy way to win.

[Wiz Imp]

109. Exactly. It's really very sad and disappointing.

[Callie1979]

112. Crazy.

[MichMan]

56. Recommended reading

[egduj]

70. The first stage is the hardest to get past.

[republianmushroom]

81. You nailed it.

Still asking for money thou.

[Polybius]

114. As per PA Senate...

The recount was automatic, since it was under .5%. However, under PA law, the person who unofficially lost can waive the recount. Casey chose not to, so the recount started. Before the recount finished however, Casey conceded.

I'm guessing that since he had the power to waive the recount before it started, once he conceded the recount was canceled.

[ecstatic]

117. The standard has been set: Only republicans have the right to audits and recounts

Democrats must blindly and automatically accept all results.

[Meowmee]

118. Agree with everything