3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoSure, 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.