4 ms·

Having a paper record helps, but only if it actually gets used to manually validate the results from the counting machine. (And if you're doing a manual count a

• gpm 5y ago
  > And if you're doing a manual count anyway, why bother having a counting machine in the first place Because that way you can report preliminary results faster? I guess you also get the "two independent ways of counting say the same thing" benefit, but I'm pretty sure that they're primarily there because the news likes it. Doing manual counts of states that at are at all close or suspected to be at all close is... normal.
  • Ajedi32 5y ago
    Sure, why not? I have no problem with counting machines that aren't actually used to produce the official count. Doing manual counts only when it's close isn't good enough though, as that leaves you open to a vulnerability where the attacker simply arranges for it to not be close.
    • b3morales 5y ago
      > a vulnerability where the attacker simply arranges for it to not be close. That attack, for state and federal elections, involves falsifying multiple independent organizations' poll results, including exit polling on the day of. Otherwise the "not close" results will not be credible and they will be investigated.
• lobocinza 5y ago
  I think they sample for validation and only do a full recount when fraud is suspected.