This Finding explains how the Missouri Method’s incremental auditing ensures hand counting accuracy over machines.
Myth: People are Less Accurate than Machines
Skill Mastery Forms Muscle Memory
An athlete cannot play in a game the same way they practiced, standing in one place waiting for the ball or puck and taking shot after shot. They must have their ‘head in the game.’ When it is time for the shot, muscle memory kicks in.
I have given presentations and interviews about hand counting for nearly two years. I referred to the two articles below as examples of perpetuating a myth with seemingly no factual backup. The myth is that counting ballots is too repetitive, and people are not accurate on repetitive tasks.
If you read only the headlines of the articles above, you would likely believe that A) research has been done to prove a lack of accuracy in hand counting and B) that there are many reasons why hand counting ballots will not work.
The truth is that both articles attempt to lead readers into believing that hand counting is so repetitive and tedious that humans will not be accurate. They espouse that it is a function that should be left to machines.
Beyond the headlines, though, both articles admit that there are few studies to prove their assertions – if there are, in fact, any such studies. A study cited in one of the articles supposed to back up their claims is not about hand counting but about humans and repetitive tasks. The author extrapolated the findings of that study and applied it to hand counting.
Click the PDF icon to read the complete Findings document.
