Conspiracy Against Common Sense: How Wild Theories Derail Electoral Reform

 

Disinformation and misinformation around elections are leading policymakers in Canada to make erroneous decisions. Conspiracy theories targeting electronic voting equipment are putting undue pressure on politicians, resulting in misguided initiatives that undermine the accuracy and efficiency of elections, rather than advancing meaningful reforms.

In Calgary, Alberta, for instance, some officials have proposed reverting to manual counting of ballots. This knee-jerk reaction is rooted in conspiracy theories about the security of electronic voting systems. Fueled by fears of fraud and misinformation, this sentiment exemplifies the dangerous trend of abandoning proven efficient technologies for outdated methods that have been repeatedly shown to be less accurate and more prone to error.

Hand-counting is often romanticized as a return to simplicity but has been proven to be less accurate, more resource-intensive, and far slower. The belief in hand-counting’s superiority over machine tabulation is not only unfounded but also dangerous, diverting attention from genuine vulnerabilities in the electoral system.

Research from MIT and the Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project has demonstrated the superior accuracy of optical scanners over manual ballot counting. The MIT study found that the error rate for ballots counted by optical scanners was around 0.5%, compared to approximately 0.9% for hand-counted ballots. Similarly, the Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project highlighted that optical scanners significantly reduce discrepancies between initial counts and recounts, ensuring more reliable results. These findings underscore the effectiveness of optical scanners in improving the accuracy of ballot counting.

Beyond accuracy, the efficiency of electronic tabulators is indispensable. In the United States, where ballots often span dozens of races and propositions, hand-counting would create logistical nightmares. Counting such complex ballots manually would require weeks or even months, delaying results and fostering uncertainty. Furthermore, in the vacuum left by delayed counts, candidates and commentators could exploit the situation, sowing further doubt about the legitimacy of the outcomes. Tabulators, on the other hand, deliver timely results that align with public expectations and preserve trust in the process.

The financial and logistical strain of hand-counting cannot be overstated. Many jurisdictions have not used manual counting in decades and lack the infrastructure to pivot back. Training and deploying the necessary workforce would be a monumental challenge, especially amid ongoing poll worker shortages. One analysis estimated that counting 90,000 ballots manually in a single day would require 1,200 workers—an unsustainable and costly prospect for most municipalities.

A 2023 study by Arizona’s Mohave County Elections Department found that hand-counting the 2024 general election results would require 245 people working 19 eight-hour days, which would cost about $521,000. Accounting for other expenses such as security guards, cameras and additional staff, the study estimated hand-counts for both the 2024 primary and general elections would cost the county $1.1 million.

The push to abandon tabulators in favor of hand-counting is a step backward, driven by myths rather than evidence. The proposal in Calgary to abandon electronic tabulation exemplifies how such decisions, based on misinformation, can undermine trust in the electoral process.

By confronting conspiracy theories with facts and embracing evidence-based solutions, we can protect the foundations of democracy. Elections should inspire confidence, not controversy—and that begins with common sense prevailing over baseless suspicion.

Scholars Unveil How Maduro Stole Venezuela’s Vote

 

The 2024 Presidential election in Venezuela, like most elections since the introduction of electronic voting 21 years ago, was heavily guarded and audited by citizens. Despite this oversight, incumbent president Nicolás Maduro stole the election. Due to the system's design and its built-in safeguards, the manipulation could not be concealed.

As reflected in the academic paper entitled “How Maduro Stole Venezuela's Vote,” by Javier Corrales and Dorothy Kronick: “Each voter cast a ballot on one of Venezuela’s electronic voting machines, inspected her individual ballot receipt (an actual piece of paper), and then dropped that receipt into a ballot box.

Later that evening, hundreds of thousands of people worked in concert to collect the results. They printed tally sheets from each voting machine. They counted millions of individual paper ballot receipts. They took photographs and videos documenting their work. And two days later, the González campaign published the results online. The campaign posted images of tally sheets that, taken together, accounted for more than 80 percent of ballots cast. González had won in a landslide. Shortly after midnight on election night, however, Venezuela’s National Electoral Council (CNE) declared that Maduro had won. He remains in office.”

To steal an election in which voters had proof of the results, incumbent President Nicolás Maduro simply relied on his tight control of Venezuelan election authorities and the military to announce fake results and get away with it. It mattered little that the electronic voting system, in its various versions, had been extensively audited for years and reflected a victory for Edmundo Gonzalez. As Corrales and Kronick conclude: "Venezuela is a dictatorship in which people count votes democratically."

The electronic voting technology was implemented in 2004 for the Presidential Recall referendum, at a time when most Venezuelan voters supported then-President Hugo Chavez. “As the beneficiary of the biggest oil windfall in the history of the Americas, Chávez had no need to steal elections.” After winning that referendum, Chavez quickly realized that an efficient and transparent electronic voting system would provide the legitimacy he craved. Consequently, from 2004 until 2017, Venezuelan elections were closely monitored by the world's most prominent election observation missions, including the Carter Center, the Organization of American States, and the European Union. These institutions repeatedly validated the legitimacy of the results. Chavez simply had the votes.

“Unlike Chávez, his handpicked successor Maduro had little luck hanging on to popular support. Yet he chose not to uproot the transparent vote-counting system. Instead, he opted to buy election-loss insurance in the form of the armed forces’ loyalty. This loyalty is the base from which Maduro has safely defied the constitution and laws, not only by his reaction to the 2024 election but also by his behavior in previous elections, by the indiscriminate killing of thousands of innocent Venezuelans, and by political assassinations, among other crimes.”

As inauguration day approaches in Venezuela, widespread concerns about the legitimacy of the 2024 elections continue to intensify. There is wide consensus—from sworn adversaries like the United States and Argentina to former allies such as Colombia and Brazil—that Nicolás Maduro’s claim to the presidency on January 10 is illegitimate. The electronic voting system was designed to provide copies of tally reports to all political parties, serving as evidence capable of exposing electoral fraud if it were to occur. Citizens have diligently collected and safeguarded this proof.  Despite this, Maduro has refused to accept defeat and relinquish power.

How Hand Count Harms the Electoral Process

 

Automation has woven itself into the warp and woof of modern life, with people trusting algorithms to manage everything from banking to medicine to transportation. It’s difficult to imagine why anyone would even advocate for a return to manual counting in elections. Yet, as the 2024 presidential race draws near, pockets of the country are pushing for just that: hand-counting ballots. While this may seem like a throwback to a simpler time, the reality is that hand-counting is inefficient, error-prone, and dangerously outdated. Here’s why it’s a bad idea.

Humans Are Prone to Error

Hand-counting votes might seem like a logical solution, especially for small jurisdictions. But when scaled up to the size of a state or the entire nation, the problems become glaring. Research consistently shows that human error is a major factor when it comes to manual tallying. A study by Rice University found that when participants counted just 120 ballots by hand, they only got it right 58 percent of the time. Over 40 percent of the time, they made mistakes. Imagine such error rate applied to the millions of ballots cast in a presidential election. The result would be chaos.

In Nye County, Nevada, this nightmare did become reality. In 2022, the county clerk, Mark Kampf, an election denier, attempted to discard machine counts in favor of a "parallel" hand-counting effort. By the end of the process, Kampf admitted to a staggering 25 percent error rate in the hand-count.

Volunteers, many of whom had no experience with election processes, struggled to reconcile the tallying process. The delay in the process didn’t just cause frustration; it led to legal intervention, with the state Supreme Court stepping in to stop the hand-counting due to concerns over early vote leaks.

This episode wasn’t an isolated incident, but an eye-opening example of what happens when we expect humans to do a job that’s far better suited for machines.

The Time and Cost of Manual Counting

Hand-counting is also a costly and time-consuming endeavor. It’s a far cry from the efficiency of electronic systems. In Texas’ Gillespie County, a hand-count of Republican primary ballots stretched into a grueling 24-hour marathon with 200 volunteers working through the night. Despite their best efforts, the final tally was riddled with errors that required additional corrections. The cost? Double what it would have been for machine tabulation.

Shasta County, California, offers yet another cautionary tale. In 2022, officials there explored the idea of hand-counting ballots. But after a cost analysis, the plan was shelved. Hand-counting would have required more than 1,200 additional workers and cost the county an estimated $1.6 million — a price tag that made the process economically unfeasible for the

small county (population of 180,663). At the end of the day, manual counting isn’t just logistically infeasible challenge; it’s a financial burden on taxpayers as well.

The Perils of Slow Results

The risk with hand-counting isn’t just about errors or costs; it’s about the delays in announcing election results. Every moment that goes by without a clear outcome invites uncertainty and distrust. In a world where misinformation spreads like wildfire, the longer it takes to tally votes, the more time there is for conspiracy theories to take root. The prolonged process in places like Texas and Nevada only fuels this distrust, making it harder to maintain the public’s faith in the electoral system.

The slow pace of manual counting also makes it vulnerable to interference. In the Nye County example, where election officials failed to meet deadlines due to slow counting, early vote tallies were leaked — a situation that could easily compromise election integrity. The longer the process drags on, the more room there is for outside forces to sow doubt or confusion.

Why Machines Are Better

E-voting systems, which are already in place across the United States, offer a far more efficient and reliable alternative. These systems are designed to count ballots quickly and accurately, with much less risk of human error. In fact, these systems are regularly audited through post-election checks, where small samples of ballots are manually recounted to ensure machine accuracy.

Election officials have long known that human beings are not suited for tasks that require repetitive precision. Machines, on the other hand, excel in this domain, making them a far better choice for large-scale elections. A well-designed tabulation system can count ballots faster, more accurately, and at a much lower cost than any hand-counting process could hope to achieve.

The push to hand-count ballots is a misguided effort driven more by misinformation than by logic. While manual counting might work for a few small, local elections, scaling it up is a recipe for disaster. It’s slow, expensive, and riddled with human error — exactly the opposite of what we need in a fast-paced, high-stakes democratic process.

Machine tabulation isn’t just more effective — it’s the future of voting.