Arizona AG Attacks Full Hand Counting As Two Counties Consider It For 2024 Elections

a reply to: Byrd

Sure, man. A hand count involves its own set of challenges and contains its own avenues for fraud, as does a machine count.

Regardless, and to the OP topic, preventing a hand count is still downright sketchy if you ask me.

If the ballots of any election are a collection of documents that certify what any given population has voted via secret ballot, and said collection of documents is collected, counted, and stored in a secure and transparent method intended to prevent fraud, then legally rendering that collection of ballots into a giant black box which no one person or collection of persons can physically count by hand, then how is there any transparency, integrity, or assurance that the count is honest and accurate?

If you sit back and think about that for a minute, you'll see my point. If that collection of documents is a black box that no one can ever see inside of, then there is no assurance, no transparency, no verification possible.

a reply to: Byrd

Hand Counts are easy when done at Precinct - Polling Place level, and ballots are not "transported" away to central locations. 😀

Run them through tabulators......then do a 100% hand recount.....never hurts to double check.

a reply to: RickinVa

Pffft.


Redundancy isn't the American way!

originally posted by: WingDingLuey
a reply to: Byrd

Hand Counts are easy when done at Precinct - Polling Place level, and ballots are not "transported" away to central locations. 😀

And how and when is this done? We set up polling places at schools and rec centers and churches and other places that aren't really set up for security; places that have regular activities scheduled there. Because there's always multiple things to vote on for each ballot, hand counting is going to tie up that space for a long time. It's not a matter of stacking it into one pile and going "done."

By the way, we went to electronic counts because the hand counts were so problematic -- easy to miss ballots, miss a tally, etc, and recounting to check for mistakes took days and weeks.

I don't see how your idea can work, short of using magic.


By the way, what you're suggesting is actually done on site with the machines. We turn that in along with the ballots. So it's counted before it hits the county/state offices.

originally posted by: badcabbie
a reply to: Byrd

Sure, man. A hand count involves its own set of challenges and contains its own avenues for fraud, as does a machine count.

Regardless, and to the OP topic, preventing a hand count is still downright sketchy if you ask me.

It's more expensive, less accurate, and more time consuming. Probably not "preventing" but "reluctant to going back to a less efficient method." Like putting wooden tires on your bicycle (the first bikes had wooden tires.)

If the ballots of any election are a collection of documents that certify what any given population has voted via secret ballot, and said collection of documents is collected, counted, and stored in a secure and transparent method intended to prevent fraud, then legally rendering that collection of ballots into a giant black box which no one person or collection of persons can physically count by hand, then how is there any transparency, integrity, or assurance that the count is honest and accurate?

If you sit back and think about that for a minute, you'll see my point. If that collection of documents is a black box that no one can ever see inside of, then there is no assurance, no transparency, no verification possible.

We have the paper audit trails, and the ballots are held for a certain time period before being destroyed. Anyone with a legitimate legal document that permits them access can access them (under the watchful eye of someone and possibly while being filmed/recorded) -- that's what happens when a recount is done.

originally posted by: Byrd
It's more expensive, less accurate, and more time consuming. Probably not "preventing" but "reluctant to going back to a less efficient method." Like putting wooden tires on your bicycle (the first bikes had wooden tires.)

Actually in this case, it does appear that the county is being "prevented" from such activity. From the OP article:

Last month, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled against Cochise County, saying that the county didn’t have authority to attempt to hand count all ballots cast in last year’s general election.

County officials had also sought to hand count future elections, which the court also rejected.

justthenews.com...

We have the paper audit trails, and the ballots are held for a certain time period before being destroyed. Anyone with a legitimate legal document that permits them access can access them (under the watchful eye of someone and possibly while being filmed/recorded) -- that's what happens when a recount is done.

Well yes, that's how it's supposed to work, but apparently in this case that is not how it is actually working. See above article quotation. Apparently, in this case, it is a black box as far as the county is concerned.

a reply to: Byrd

My God ⚠️

a reply to: Byrd

You are forgetting a very important, possibly the most important part of the equation when it comes to voting. (I am putting aside my personal opinion of the computerized machines)

People have to TRUST the vote, right now a lot of people whether you agree with them or not do not trust the process, as a 50 yr old I dont remember any big questions about the vote till democrats challenged the 2000 election, now it seems to be a fairly regular occurance.

Maybe the use of older methods while possibly more expensive and labor intensive would quell the discontent of all the voters.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Maybe the use of older methods while possibly more expensive and labor intensive would quell the discontent of all the voters.

Elections that can be verified will quell the discontentment of voters.

It's elections that can't verified due to things like broken chain of custody and missing or altered records that lead to distrust in elections.

Anyone who conducts a fair and secure election should be able to prove it fully, and that proof is all every voter need to trust an election.

So many independent elections are ran in our country, that it would be completely illogical to blindly trust that all of them are fair and secure all of the time.

There are those who wish that was the norm, though.

a reply to: Degradation33

Interesting thoughts, and I think you raise some valid points about the demographic. That new suburb of Los Angeles (aka Phoenix) just keeps sprawling and sprawling, and as far as I know that trend won't change anytime soon.

That being said, the 2020 election WAS a bit sketchy in AZ. From memory, lack of transparency was one of the most noteworthy issues. Of course Maricopa county's response was to double down and run an even less transparent election count in 2022 if I remember it right. In that context, I can't say as I blame Ms. Lake for raising such a hullabaloo. I might do the same, if it were I in her position.

If it's a black box it's a black box, and the results are whatever "the man" says they are. If it's a transparent process, then the ballots are a collection of documents that can be verified, the tabulating of which determines the winners of the contests.