I am confused: Shouldn't the machine count already be final, certified

[milkyway]

and public knowledge for each precinct? Why are the machines even an issue now?

I thought a recount would be done by hand, and then compared to the already known final machine count. In the select 3% of precincts doing a recount, aren't the recounts being done by hand, and if so, why are the machines even needed? Perhaps as a central tabulator?

What am I missing about this process?
 

[Eric J in MN]

1. No, the system in Ohio for the recount is that

they hand-count 3%, then run those through the machine, and if that machine-count matches that hand-count, then they put the rest of the ballots into the machine.

I'd prefer a 100% hand-count.

I wrote about this in my blog yesterday:
http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_essay_2004_12_14_voting_rights_tuesday__ohio_recount.asp

[milkyway]

2. This process is totally stupid. If the point of the recount is to verify

that the machines were counting properly on election day, why are they comparing the hand count to how the machines are counting right now? And why on earth are they talking about bringing in a different machine when one of them has problems? If it wasn't the machine used on election day, it's pointless to do a hand count.

[Eric J in MN]

3. I agree. A recount should be a 100% hand-count.

That is what they are doing in Washington State for the governor's race.

Even if we assume for a second that the machines in Ohio aren't intentionally rigged, there are undervotes (hanging chad ballots) which will be missed without a handcount.

A person who cast a vote shouldn't be disenfranchised by a hanging chad.