An Argument for Hand-Counted Paper Ballots
I first became politically active in 1960, while a sophomore in high school. As part of that, I was a spectator in my small California town precinct as the ballots were counted after the polls closed. I watched adults I knew in my home town painstakingly count and recount ballots in an organized way that could be observed, because it took place in public with an audience.
All ballots were sorted by the particular race for each count, with ballots stacked into piles for that race. Then, the piles were counted by different people, with each ballot being checked to make sure it was in the right pile. The process was done twice for each race, by different people and the totals compared. If there was a discrepancy, the process was repeated, with even closer scrutiny. Finally, the totals were tallied, with that tally checked by another group. Everything was checked, rechecked and all was done in public view.
This was repeated for every office or other ballot measure. It took hours during that year's Presidential election. With an audience of interested observers present, the process was done seriously and carefully. Questionable ballots were examined by election judges and decisions made after discussion. Everything was observed by actual voters who watched to make sure the process was done correctly.
At the end of each race's or proposition's tally, a telephone call was made to the County clerk's office with the results. There, they were written on a tally board that showed all precincts, along with a total for the entire country. Watchers and the media were there, too, observing the entire process as it happened.
In the precincts, once all of the votes were counted for each item on the ballot, all ballots were placed in a locked box and driven to the county clerk's office, where they were stored safely in case a recount was needed.
All of this took time. Often, the final results were not available until the wee hours of the morning or even the next day. But, everything was observed. Actual people participated in every step of all of this, with all parties represented. Fairness and accuracy was assured, because the entire process was public and there was an actual audience at every precinct who cared about fairness and accuracy.
It was slow. It was correct. It was fair. Most people got the results only when the afternoon newspapers were available and on the evening local news the day after the election. We waited, because that slow, accurate process gave us real, trustworthy results.
It was a good system. It was labor intensive, but volunteers and paid election judges were always available, because the process was recognized as crucial to the democratic process.
Are we patient enough to do elections in this way now? We should be, I think.
= new reply since forum marked as read
