3 ms·
That, and have an UNOFFICIAL digital count as well, the one that's done quickly for the news and everyone making planning, with the official, double-counting ve
by mjevans 6y ago
That, and have an UNOFFICIAL digital count as well, the one that's done quickly for the news and everyone making planning, with the official, double-counting verified recount reaching the same numbers as the electronic and previous hand count (within a very small % for human error).
If there's a disagreement the human counts are repeated until within 0.001% and then they're official.
- ta1234567890 6y agoExcept we are lazy and will come to rely on the digital system, then we will never care to recount unless there's a lot of pressure, and even then it might take so long that we will probably not wait. Already a US presidential election was decided on the wrong count, when the proper count came out it was too late.
- AdamJacobMuller 6y agodo randomly-selected sampling of paper buckets. e.g. you transmit your digital results, on a per-machine level, at t+1 minute to the central precinct. at t+5 minutes the central precinct sends back a random request to have X% of the machines audited by hand. If there is a significant abnormality, we move to a larger recount and withhold electronic results. If things match up, we announce the full electronic results around t+1 hour. Works for me?
- TMWNN 6y ago>Already a US presidential election was decided on the wrong count, when the proper count came out it was too late. The majority of media "recounts" after the fact showed that Bush did win Florida in 2000.