Hand Counting Better Captures Voter Intent

The Myth: Machine Counts Always Match Hand Counts

It’s often claimed that machine-tabulated results match hand-count verifications, but this is a myth. A 2022 survey by a clerk association revealed bipartisan teams recounted up to 8 times to “match” machines, ignoring voter intent. Hand counting better captures voter intent by prioritizing human judgment over rigid machine programming.

Finding: Machines Miss Voter Intent, Humans Don’t

Why Machines Miss Voter Intent

Machines struggle with voter intent, often misinterpreting marks outside ovals as overvotes or skipping them. Missouri law (statutes 115.453, 115.456) requires a “distinguishing mark” to count votes based on intent — something humans excel at, while machines are limited by programming. Yet, election workers are often untrained on voter intent, forced to mimic machines. In 2022, I witnessed a certification where a machine missed a vote for an unexplained reason, and judges assumed an oval wasn’t fully filled, overlooking the voter’s choice. Hand counting captures intent by training counters to honor state laws and the voter’s true choice.

Ensure Accurate Counts with Hand Counting

Hand counting prioritizes voter intent, using human judgment to interpret marks machines miss. The hand count training emphasizes state laws on voter intent, ensuring counters honor the voter’s choice — unlike machines that may discard valid votes.

Action for Elected Officials

Protect voter intent with hand counting. Machines and untrained audits can’t match human discernment. Support policies that prioritize hand counting and train election workers on voter intent laws.

Read the full content at Finding: Hand Counting is a Better Tool for Determining Voter Intent