As long as the hand count is recognized as the actual result i would be fine with that.Knowing humans and our tendency to be lazy, i fear we would first reduce the redundant checks and then skip them completely. In the name of efficiency of course.
Also after witnessing the history of absolute fuckups my government (germany) produced in the field of software and IT, i don’t want them to use machines. They lost any trust i had in them with any kind of technology. Let them count and add up by hand, i’ll gladly pay extra taxes for that.
As long as the hand count is recognized as the actual result i would be fine with that
That’s how it works, yeah. Since there’s unlikely to be any issue with the machine count, that works fine for getting results on the day, but ultimately you have the paper record that can be checked by hand, or run through different counting machines, in order to verify if there’s any concerns.
Good point, thanks!
As long as the hand count is recognized as the actual result i would be fine with that.Knowing humans and our tendency to be lazy, i fear we would first reduce the redundant checks and then skip them completely. In the name of efficiency of course.
Also after witnessing the history of absolute fuckups my government (germany) produced in the field of software and IT, i don’t want them to use machines. They lost any trust i had in them with any kind of technology. Let them count and add up by hand, i’ll gladly pay extra taxes for that.
Maybe i’m just a bit to paranoid :/
That’s how it works, yeah. Since there’s unlikely to be any issue with the machine count, that works fine for getting results on the day, but ultimately you have the paper record that can be checked by hand, or run through different counting machines, in order to verify if there’s any concerns.