Hand Counting Ensures Accuracy with Incremental Auditing

The Myth: Humans Are Less Accurate Than Machines

Hand counting ensures accuracy, despite claims that it’s less reliable than machines. Articles (NPR, Washington Post, 2022) often allege hand counting is too repetitive for people to handle. Yet, these sources overlook studies showing machines make errors — like “glitches” or “programming issues,” such as the Wyoming clerk’s ballot formatting mistake in 2024. With incremental auditing, hand counting accuracy surpasses machines.

The Missouri Method Guarantees Precision

The Missouri Method uses incremental auditing to ensure precision:

• Batch Reconciliation: Teams count 25–150 ballots, tallying votes on Ballots Tally Forms. REP and DEM judges compare totals after each batch, correcting discrepancies immediately.
• Step-by-Step Checks: Totals are transferred to Batches Summary sheets, reconciled, then copied to Results of Polling Place and Statement of Returns forms, with constant verification.
• Real-World Validation: In Osage County’s 2023 hand count, judges called the process “fun” and efficient, with built-in checks preventing errors. Role rotation also combats fatigue.

Use tools at ReturntoHandCounting.com/Training to master the process, building muscle memory for accuracy. Incremental auditing catches errors early, unlike machine audits that “hope for the best.”

Action for Elected Officials

Hand counting ensures accuracy through rigorous auditing — not machines that hide errors. Support policies for hand counting with incremental auditing to guarantee election integrity.

Read the full content at Finding: Incremental Auditing Assures Accuracy