A Timeless Election Concern
In 1996, Pandora’s Black Box: Did It Really Count Your Vote? sounded an alarm about computerized voting systems, questioning their reliability and transparency. Nearly three decades later, this article remains a powerful reminder of the risks in trusting machines over human oversight. We echo this call, advocating for hand counting as a transparent, fraud-proof solution, proven by our Missouri Method and reinforced by Mike Lindell’s trial victory on June 16, 2025.
The 1996 Warning of Computerized Voting Risks: Machines Lack Transparency
The Pandora’s Black Box article, part of SweetLiberty.org’s election integrity series, highlighted early concerns about computerized voting systems introduced in the U.S. These systems promised efficiency but raised red flags for potential errors and manipulation. Unlike paper ballots, which voters and clerks can physically verify, machines hid vote tallies behind proprietary software, creating a “black box” where errors or fraud could go undetected. This opacity, the article argued, undermined voter trust—a concern as relevant today as it was in 1996.
“Their” Narrative: Machines Are Trustworthy
The article exposed a narrative still prevalent in 2025: machines are sold as fraud-proof, dismissing human oversight as error-prone. This “their” narrative—seen in labels like “election denier” or the reframing of the 2021 Stop the Steal Rally as “J6”—downplays machine vulnerabilities. The 1996 piece noted how early computerized systems lacked auditable trails, a flaw echoed in recent incidents like Wyoming’s election error, where “human error” masked machine failures. Hand-counting counters this by making every vote visible.
Why Computerized Voting Risks Persist
Pandora’s Black Box warned of risks still evident today: software glitches, hacking vulnerabilities, and lack of voter verification. For example, the 2025 Wyoming controversy showed machines failing to catch errors, requiring human audits to uncover discrepancies. The 1996 article’s call for transparency aligns with our mission: machines obscure; hand counting reveals.
Hand Counting: The Transparent Alternative
Hand counting, as proven by our Missouri Method in 2025, eliminates the “black box.” Volunteers in St. Charles County counted ballots faster than machines, saving $67,000 annually. Unlike computerized systems, which hide votes in code, hand counting lets citizens see every tally. The Pandora’s Black Box critique supports this: paper ballots, counted openly, prevent the fraud machines enable. Our eManual, available at ReturntoHandCounting.com, provides clerks with simple steps to adopt this method, ensuring trust in every election.
Lessons from 1996 for Today’s Elections
The 1996 article was prophetic, warning that computerized voting could erode democracy if unchecked. Today, with incidents like Weston County’s error and Lindell’s trial spotlighting machine flaws, the need for hand counting is urgent. Small counties, like those in Missouri and Wyoming, can lead by adopting transparent methods. The Pandora’s Black Box critique reminds us: trust in elections comes from what we can see, not what machines hide.
Join the Movement for Election Trust
Pandora’s Black Box opened a conversation in 1996 that we continue in 2025. Return to Hand Counting answers its call with hand counting—transparent, reliable, and community-driven. Download our eManual to learn how to implement the Missouri Method. With Lindell’s trial proving machine risks, now is the time to reject “their” narrative and ensure every vote is counted openly. Join us to make elections trustworthy again.
This post utilized drafting assistance from Grok3, an A.I. tool from xAI
