Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Vote counting

Vote counting is the systematic aggregation and of ballots in an to determine results and declare victors. Following the closure of polling stations, ballots—whether , scanned, or electronically recorded—are securely transported to counting centers for tabulation, often beginning with preliminary reads and culminating in a canvass that reconciles voter participation records against issued and returned ballots. The process prioritizes accuracy through pre-election logic-and-accuracy tests of tabulation equipment, chain-of-custody documentation, and post-election procedures like risk-limiting audits, which statistically sample ballots to confirm machine tallies with verifiable margins of error. Systems generating voter-verified trails, such as hand-marked ballots or ballot-marking devices, facilitate these audits and outperform direct-recording machines in empirical assessments of against errors or alterations. Controversies center on vulnerabilities, including software , unauthorized , and potential remote , as exposed in peer-reviewed analyses and demonstrations, underscoring the causal risks of insufficient backups. While comprehensive audits have upheld tabulation in major contests, statistical methods detecting turnout-vote discrepancies or improbable outcome patterns reveal isolated mechanisms in some jurisdictions, prompting calls for mandatory hand counts in tight races and universal standards to bolster causal confidence in results.

Historical Development

Pre-Modern and 19th-Century Practices

In ancient , votes in the were predominantly cast via cheirotonia, a show-of-hands procedure where presiding officials visually estimated the prevailing side rather than conducting an exact count, reflecting the assembly's emphasis on collective acclamation over precision. For , citizens inscribed names on pottery shards (ostraka), which were deposited into urns and manually tallied; validity required at least 6,000 shards, with the individual receiving the most votes facing ten-year , as evidenced by archaeological finds of over 10,000 ostraka from the 5th century BCE. Judicial votes employed similar secret methods, using tokens or pebbles dropped into separate "for" and "against" urns, followed by clerks' enumeration to determine guilt by . Roman Republican elections in the comitia centuriata or tributa aggregated votes by organized s—centuries or tribes—where each group internally decided via or physical division before declaring its collective preference, with presiding magistrates summing unit majorities rather than individual tallies. Secret balloting via wax tablets (tabellae) was mandated for consular and elections after 139 BCE to curb , involving voters marking candidates' names, depositing tablets into fenced enclosures, and officials sorting and counting them per unit amid public oversight, though elite centuries voted first and could sway outcomes disproportionately. Medieval European elections, confined to ecclesiastical and imperial selections among elites, featured limited but formalized counting; papal conclaves, post-1179 reforms, required cardinals to submit written secret ballots thrice daily, scrutinized by designated tellers for a two-thirds , as in the 1268–1271 election where over 1,000 ballots were processed amid factional impasses and interventions like roof smoke signals to hasten resolution. elections by prince-electors similarly involved negotiated consensus or majority pledges among a small electorate, with often substituting for numerical tallies until formalized votes in later centuries. By the 19th century, mass relied on manual counting of paper ballots—initially announcements tallied on slates until the shift to printed party tickets deposited in boxes—where local clerks, judges, and spectators publicly enumerated votes by amid unstandardized procedures, fostering discrepancies as seen in the presidential contest where resolution followed tied electoral tallies. European practices mirrored this, with Britain's pre-1872 open involving oral declarations or colored ballots counted at hustings by sheriffs, prone to until the Ballot Act mandated secret paper slips sorted and tallied in private by officials; continental reforms, like France's post-1848 direct suffrage, entailed similar hand-counts of folded ballots in urns, verified by committees but vulnerable to until Australian-style ballots in the –1890s enhanced uniformity.

20th-Century Mechanization and Standardization

The shift to mechanized vote counting in the addressed longstanding issues with manual tabulation, including time delays, , and opportunities for ballot stuffing or miscounting inherent in hand-sorted paper ballots. Lever-based mechanical machines, which enclosed voters in a booth and used to register selections on counters, represented the era's primary innovation. These devices automated tallying by mechanically incrementing vote totals for each office, enabling rapid results at poll closure without manual intervention. Patented in the 1890s by inventors like J.H. Myers (U.S. Patents 415,549, 424,332, and 494,588), the machines facilitated via a single lever pull, streamlining the process for multi-office ballots. The first practical deployment occurred in the election in , where the system demonstrated reduced fraud risks by enforcing voter secrecy and eliminating visible ballot handling. Adoption accelerated in urban centers during the early to mid-20th century, driven by state laws mandating secret ballots and machine use to curb corruption exposed in elections. By the 1920s, lever machines had become the dominant method in major cities, remaining in use through the 1980s and handling votes for millions via geared counters that minimized recount needs. In , for instance, full implementation occurred by 1960, overcoming political resistance in areas prone to tampering. Nationwide, over half of elections employed these systems by the 1960s, significantly cutting tabulation times from days to hours and standardizing outcomes through consistent mechanical operation across precincts. This mechanization prioritized empirical reliability, with counters designed for auditability via locked seals and public demonstrations, though mechanical jams occasionally required manual overrides. Mid-century innovations introduced punch-card systems, adapting data-processing technology for scalable counting. Voters perforated pre-printed cards opposite candidates, which were then fed into tabulators detecting removals via electrical sensors. The Votomatic system, pioneered in the 1960s, enabled efficient handling of complex and absentee votes, first gaining traction in states like and expanding to cover about 25% of U.S. voters by the . These complemented lever machines in rural or high-volume areas, offering detachable cards for . efforts, largely state-driven, involved certifying machine models for accuracy and uniformity—such as requiring identical ballot layouts and tests—but lacked federal oversight until the late , resulting in patchwork implementation. Empirical studies later quantified residual errors, like undetached chads, but initial adoption focused on causal advantages in speed and reduced manual bias over 19th-century variability.

Post-2000 Reforms and Digital Integration

![State audits.png][float-right] The Help America Vote Act (HAVA), enacted on October 29, 2002, mandated significant reforms to U.S. voting systems following the disputed 2000 presidential election recount in , requiring states to replace punch-card and lever voting machines with either direct-recording electronic (DRE) systems or optical-scan tabulators capable of producing voter-verified paper audit trails (VVPAT). HAVA also established the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to set voluntary standards for voting equipment and required provisional balloting for voters unable to verify registration at polls, alongside accessible voting aids for individuals with disabilities. By 2006, federal funding under HAVA facilitated widespread adoption, with optical-scan systems—scanning hand-marked paper ballots—supplanting older mechanical methods in most jurisdictions, as they allowed for manual recounts and audits while integrating digital tabulation for efficiency. Early digital integration emphasized DRE machines for touch-screen without records, but vulnerabilities exposed in studies, such as a 2006 Princeton analysis of Diebold systems demonstrating remote hackability, prompted a backlash. States increasingly mandated VVPAT by the late , shifting toward hybrid systems where interfaces assist in marking ballots—exemplified by devices like the AutoMARK—for tabulation via optical scanners, balancing accessibility with verifiable records. This evolution addressed error rates from pre-2000 systems, like Florida's 1.5% in cards, by enabling precinct-level optical scanning and centralized aggregation with protocols. Post-2010 reforms focused on auditability, with risk-limiting audits (RLAs)—statistical methods sampling paper ballots to confirm electronic tallies with high confidence—piloted in in 2017 and implemented statewide by 2018, expanding to states like and by 2020. RLAs limit the risk of certifying incorrect outcomes to a predefined level (typically 5-10%), drawing from ballot-level data rather than precinct aggregates, and empirical applications post-2020, including in swing states, detected discrepancies under 0.01% while affirming reported results. Following the 2020 election, over 20 states enacted laws strengthening paper ballot requirements and procedures, such as Georgia's 2021 mandate for statewide RLAs and Michigan's expansion of pre-tabulated mail ballot processing with bipartisan oversight. These reforms integrated tools like electronic poll books for voter and secure result transmission, but prioritized paper records for transparency, with audits confirming tabulation accuracy across major contests. By 2024, approximately 95% of U.S. voters used paper-based systems with machine tabulation, reflecting a on approaches mitigating risks through empirical .

Fundamental Principles

Determining Voter Intent from Ballots

Determining voter intent from ballots requires election officials to interpret markings or absences thereof to ascertain a voter's clear preference for candidates, measures, or options, guided by statutory standards that emphasize unambiguous expression over strict adherence to prescribed formats. In jurisdictions worldwide, valid votes are those where the ballot demonstrably reflects the voter's will without contradiction, such as a filled target area (e.g., oval or box), a cross, check, or other consistent indicator within or adjacent to the selection space. Ambiguous marks, like stray lines or incomplete fills without pattern, are typically rejected to avoid speculation, while corrections such as erasures or strikethroughs are accepted only if they clearly isolate a single choice. In the United States, state-specific voter intent laws, present in nearly all jurisdictions, mandate review of machine-rejected ballots—often overvotes or undervotes—by bipartisan teams or boards to confirm eligibility based on discernible intent. For instance, in , marks like circles, underlines, or diagonal lines intersecting the are valid if consistent and non-conflicting, but overvotes (selections exceeding allowable choices) are invalid unless explicitly corrected to indicate one preference, such as by striking extraneous marks. Undervotes, where fewer selections are made than permitted, count the marked choices but reject fully struck-through races. Write-in votes require a legible name attributable to a , tolerating misspellings or abbreviations if uniquely identifiable, even without a filled . Arizona guidelines similarly prioritize pattern consistency, validating incomplete target fills or uniform extra-target marks (e.g., circling candidates across the ) if they uniformly signal choices without overvotes, while rejecting stray or inconsistent extraneous marks. Overvotes are invalidated unless remedied by clear indicators like an "X" over one option or written directives specifying intent. These rules apply during manual , where officials duplicate or adjudicate ballots to resolve scanner ambiguities, ensuring through observer access. Internationally, principles from bodies like the OSCE and stress that vote counting must honor the genuine expression of voter will, rejecting ballots with unclear or multiple selections to prevent attribution, while allowing recovery of intent from damaged ballots via if the original marks remain verifiable. Empirical studies of manual reviews show adjudication error rates below 1% when standardized criteria are followed, though disputes arise in close races due to interpretive subjectivity, underscoring the need for predefined, objective thresholds.

Chain of Custody and Secure Handling Protocols

Chain of custody protocols in vote counting involve the documented tracking of ballots, voting equipment, and associated materials from their distribution to storage after tabulation, ensuring accountability for every handler to prevent tampering or loss. These procedures require detailed logs recording the date, time, location, item description, condition, and signatures of at least two authorized personnel for each transfer or access. The dual-custody rule mandates that no single individual handles sensitive materials alone, with handlers often required to represent different political parties to enhance oversight. Secure handling extends to physical measures, including the use of tamper-evident seals affixed to containers and equipment, each assigned unique serial numbers that are verified and logged before and after any movement. Storage facilities employ locks, surveillance, and access controls limited to vetted personnel who undergo background checks and training. For mail-in and early s, protocols specify daily transfers from collection points to central facilities under chain-of-custody logs, with defective or unopened envelopes segregated and documented separately. Election officials maintain comprehensive forms, such as precinct certification sheets and seal logs placed inside sealed units, to provide an auditable trail retained for the full statutory period, often years post-. Broken or discrepancies trigger immediate investigations, with retained seal remnants serving as . These practices, outlined in federal guidance, enable post-election audits and legal defenses by demonstrating continuous control over materials.

Role of Observers, Transparency, and Bipartisan Oversight

Election observers, often termed poll watchers, are appointed by , candidates, or ballot issue groups to monitor vote counting and related procedures, ensuring adherence to established protocols and preventing irregularities. In the United States, state laws delineate observers' , typically allowing them to witness processing, tabulation, and canvassing without interfering in operations. oversight supplements this through the Voting Rights Act, deploying observers to covered jurisdictions during counting to verify compliance with federal standards. Their presence deters potential misconduct and facilitates real-time challenges to procedural deviations, as evidenced by state-specific statutes mandating non-disruptive of central count locations. Transparency in vote counting encompasses mechanisms such as public access to counting sites, documentation of for ballots, and disclosure of tabulation results, which empirical studies link to heightened in electoral outcomes. For instance, operational — including visible handling of ballots and verifiable trails—has been shown to mitigate by allowing independent , with research indicating that observable processes correlate with reduced perceptions of across lines. Some jurisdictions enhance this through live video feeds of counting or release of anonymized images post-election, balancing against risks; a 2025 study found that such disclosures reveal vote choices for under 0.2% of ballots when properly aggregated, supporting without widespread individual exposure. These practices stem from codes requiring open sessions, where totals are announced publicly to enable cross-checks. Bipartisan oversight integrates representatives from major parties into counting teams and audit processes, minimizing unilateral and promoting mutual in tabulation. In numerous states, election boards and tabulation staff must include members from opposing parties, with procedures like risk-limiting audits conducted jointly to statistically validate machine counts against hand tallies from random precinct samples. This structure, formalized in laws such as those mandating 1% hand counts in certain jurisdictions, has empirically confirmed tabulation accuracy in audits, with discrepancies rarely exceeding 0.5% and attributable to human error rather than systemic . Bipartisan involvement extends to certifying results, where party-appointed canvassers review totals, fostering consensus; deviations require documented justification, as seen in post-2020 reforms tightening observer protocols in battleground states. Such oversight counters potential biases in administration, with studies attributing sustained trust to these cross-partisan checks over opaque unilateral processes.

Manual Counting

Procedures and Techniques

Manual counting of ballots typically begins with securing and organizing paper after polls close, grouping them by precinct or ballot style to maintain . Ballots are then divided into manageable batches, often of 25 to 50, each stamped with a unique for . Counting occurs in teams of four to seven members, including a caller who announces voter selections, to verify announcements against the ballot, and recorders who tally votes for each on separate sheets. Voter intent is determined by examining marks on the , prioritizing clear, complete indicators such as filled ovals or checked boxes while rejecting ambiguous or extraneous markings. Overvotes, where more selections exceed allowable choices, render the vote invalid for that contest, as do write-ins for candidates already listed on the . Teams each batch sequentially across all races, reconciling the number of ballots against recorded votes and cross-checking tallies among recorders to detect discrepancies. Verification techniques include immediate re-tallies for batches showing inconsistencies and post-count audits comparing aggregated results against records. Bipartisan oversight and observer presence ensure , with unresolved ambiguities escalated to election officials or courts per state law. In risk-limiting audits, a statistical sample of ballots undergoes manual tabulation to confirm results, expanding if discrepancies exceed thresholds. These protocols prioritize accuracy through but are resource-intensive, as evidenced by full hand counts taking days for large volumes, such as 219 days for 105,000 ballots in .

Applications and Contexts

Manual counting of ballots finds primary application in small-scale elections, particularly in jurisdictions with low where the volume permits feasible hand tabulation without prohibitive delays. In the United States, fewer than 0.17% of registered voters reside in areas relying exclusively on hand-counted paper ballots as of , typically limited to rural precincts or municipal contests with limited races. Internationally, manual methods persist in developing regions lacking automated infrastructure, as observed in African elections such as 's 2015 parliamentary vote, where poll workers manually sorted and tallied paper ballots under observer scrutiny. A key context for manual counting is post-election , including statistical audits designed to confirm machine tabulations. Risk-limiting audits (RLAs), implemented in over 20 U.S. states by 2023, involve hand-counting a sample of ballots proportional to reported margins until a predefined risk threshold is met, providing empirical assurance of outcome accuracy without full recounts. For instance, conducted a full manual recount of approximately 5 million ballots in the 2020 presidential election, revealing discrepancies of less than 0.01% that did not alter certified results, underscoring its in resolving disputes amid close contests. Such audits prioritize sampled over exhaustive counts to balance thoroughness with practicality, as full hand tallies in large elections have demonstrated error rates exceeding 1% in controlled tests. In systems emphasizing , counting serves as the default for entire elections, particularly in nations with paper-based traditions. employs hand counting for all ballots, with workers verbally announcing votes while displaying them publicly, a practice credited by international observers for fostering trust through direct visibility despite slower processing times of several hours per precinct. Similarly, certain multi-seat electoral systems, like , adapt techniques by grouping ballots by candidate preference before aggregation, applied in parliamentary contexts where voter intent requires nuanced sorting beyond simple . These applications highlight counting's utility in low-technology environments or where public observation overrides efficiency, though scalability limits its use to contexts under 1,000 ballots per unit to minimize fatigue-induced errors documented at 2-5% in prolonged sessions.

Empirical Error Rates and Influencing Factors

Empirical studies on manual vote counting reveal error rates varying significantly by context, typically ranging from 0.5% in controlled, small-scale audits to over 20% in full-scale hand counts of larger ballot volumes. For instance, a Rice University experiment simulating post-election audits found error rates of 0.5% to 1% using a "read-and-mark" procedure involving sequential verification by multiple counters, but up to 2% with a "sort-and-stack" method focused on one race at a time. In contrast, a MIT study of New Hampshire poll workers conducting hand counts reported an 8% error rate, compared to 0.5% for machine tabulation. Full hand counts in real elections have shown higher discrepancies; in Nye County, Nevada, during a 2022 manual recount of midterm ballots, initial team tallies deviated from machine results by up to 25%, attributed to volunteer inconsistencies before reconciliation. Wisconsin statewide hand count audits provide additional data, with error rates of 0.26% in 2011 and 0.86% in 2016, exceeding machine counts but remaining below thresholds that altered outcomes in most cases. These rates reflect discrepancies in interpreting voter intent, such as faint or stray marks on paper ballots, rather than outright miscounts. Another simulation with untrained participants counting two races across 120 ballots yielded only 58% accuracy, highlighting vulnerabilities in less structured settings. Key factors influencing these error rates include procedural methods, with sequential read-and-mark approaches outperforming batch sorting due to built-in cross-verification. complexity exacerbates inaccuracies; multi-race, multi-page ballots increase and misinterpretation of marginal marks, while simple single-race ballots yield lower errors. Counter fatigue from extended shifts—often exceeding 14 hours in full counts—correlates with rising discrepancies, unlike brief audit samples. Inadequate , as seen with volunteers in Nye County, amplifies , whereas professional poll workers in MIT-tested scenarios still averaged higher errors than automated systems. Scale matters: error rates climb in high-volume counts due to cumulative fatigue and coordination challenges among teams.
Study/ContextError RateKey Notes
Audit Simulation (Read-and-Mark)0.5–1%Sequential verification reduces errors.
Simulation (Untrained)42% (inverse of 58% accuracy)Two races on 120 ballots; highlights training impact.
New Hampshire Poll Workers8%Vs. 0.5% machine; procedural factors.
Wisconsin Audits (2011/2016)0.26%/0.86%Statewide; higher than machines but outcome-stable.
Nye County, NV (2022 Full Count)Up to 25%Volunteer teams vs. machines; reconciled later.

Mechanical Counting Systems

Punch Card and Lever Machines

Punch card voting systems, such as the introduced in the , required voters to use a to perforate pre-scored holes on a cardboard ballot corresponding to selected candidates. The punched cards were then fed into a that detected the absence of material in the holes via mechanical or optical sensors to tally votes precinct by precinct. These systems gained widespread adoption in the United States during the mid-20th century due to their relatively low cost and capacity to handle high-volume tabulation compared to manual counting. Empirical analyses of the 2000 U.S. presidential election revealed elevated residual vote rates—uncounted or invalid ballots—with punch card systems averaging 2.9% undervotes nationally, attributed to incomplete perforations like "hanging chads" or voter misalignment. A study across multiple elections confirmed punch cards produced the highest residual rates among mechanical systems, exceeding 3% in some jurisdictions, due to in punching and machine detection thresholds. Recounts often necessitated manual inspection of cards for voter intent, introducing subjectivity and variability, as machines could not reliably interpret partial punches. Lever voting machines, first deployed in the U.S. in 1892 with the Myers Automatic Booth, consisted of enclosed mechanical booths where voters manipulated levers to register selections on candidate counters before activating a master lever to lock votes and exit. Internal and dials mechanically accumulated tallies without paper intermediaries, enabling rapid precinct-level results and voter privacy via curtained booths. By the late , these direct-recording devices dominated urban areas, processing millions of votes with minimal electronic components. Reliability assessments indicated lever machines yielded lower residual vote rates than punch cards, typically under 2% in presidential contests, owing to their design preventing overvotes and providing tactile feedback. However, the absence of auditable records complicated post-election , with recounts relying on machine disassembly or statistical sampling rather than direct review. Mechanical wear, such as jammed levers or counter misalignment, occurred sporadically, though empirical data from pre-2000 elections showed error rates below 1% for tabulation accuracy when functioning. Both systems declined following the of 2002, which allocated over $3 billion to states for replacing punch card and machines with provisional balloting and accessible technologies by January 1, 2006, for federal elections. The 2000 recount amplified concerns over disparities and lack of uniform standards, prompting the phase-out despite levers' historical fraud resistance via physical safeguards. By , machines were obsolete in all U.S. jurisdictions, and punch cards were fully supplanted, driven by maintenance costs, accessibility deficits under the , and demands for verifiable audit trails.

Transition and Legacy Issues

The Help America Vote Act (HAVA), signed into law on October 29, 2002, marked the primary catalyst for transitioning away from punch card and lever machines in U.S. federal elections, following the 2000 recount disputes over undervotes and overvotes in punch card systems, where error rates exceeded 2% in some counties due to remnants. HAVA allocated approximately $3.9 billion in federal grants to states for equipment upgrades and mandated that, effective , , voting systems for federal contests must include a manual audit capacity via voter-verified paper records, rendering non-compliant punch card and lever machines obsolete for such use. This provision, combined with states' exhaustion of HAVA funds by the mid-2000s, accelerated replacements with optical scan systems or direct-recording electronic (DRE) machines equipped for paper trails, reducing nationwide use of punch cards from about 25% of voters in 2000 to under 1% by 2008. Lever machines, introduced in the 1890s and peaking at over 50% of U.S. precincts by the , underwent a parallel decline due to escalating maintenance expenses—often $5,000–$10,000 per unit annually for repairs amid scarce proprietary parts—and incompatibility with accessibility requirements like those in the Help America Vote Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Jurisdictions such as decommissioned their last lever machines in 2010 after a court-mandated transition, citing costs exceeding $50 million for storage and disposal alone, while empirical studies showed lever systems yielding residual vote rates of 1.5–3% higher than modern alternatives owing to mechanical jams and voter confusion. By 2012, fewer than 2% of U.S. voters used any mechanical systems, with full phase-out achieved nationwide shortly thereafter. Legacy challenges persist in decommissioning, including environmental hazards from lead-acid batteries and in discarded units—estimated at over 100,000 machines nationwide—prompting state-level programs under EPA guidelines to mitigate . Financial burdens fell disproportionately on local governments, as HAVA reimbursements covered only partial costs, leaving some counties with unfunded liabilities for secure storage of machines retained for potential recounts or litigation, despite negligible ongoing use. These transitions underscored causal factors like aging and regulatory mandates driving reductions—post-HAVA residual votes dropped by 50% on average—but also highlighted procurement delays in underfunded areas, occasionally necessitating hand-counted paper backups during the 2004–2006 interim.

Electronic Counting Systems

Optical Scan and Ballot Marking Devices

Optical scan voting systems utilize paper marked by voters through filling in designated ovals or boxes adjacent to candidate names or choices, typically with a or . These marked ballots are then processed by optical that detect the presence of marks via differences in light reflection or , converting the physical marks into vote tallies. This method allows for rapid tabulation while retaining physical ballots for potential manual recounts or audits. Systems are categorized into precinct-count optical scan (PCOS), where ballots are scanned at polling places, and central-count optical scan (CCOS), where ballots are transported to a central for scanning. PCOS enables immediate reporting from precincts but requires secure on-site equipment, while CCOS centralizes processing for efficiency in large jurisdictions. Empirical studies indicate that optical scan systems exhibit lower residual vote rates—uncounted valid votes—compared to punch-card systems, with average presidential residual rates around 1.5% for optical scan versus over 3% for cards in the 2000 election, attributable to clearer marking interfaces reducing voter errors. Post-2002 reforms further decreased these rates to under 2% in many implementations through improved design and voter education. Scanner accuracy depends on mark quality, with marginal or faint marks potentially leading to misreads, though modern achieve error rates below 0.5% for properly marked ballots in controlled tests. Mechanical issues such as paper jams or memory card failures have occurred, with some models like the AccuVote OS reporting up to 15% card failure rates in specific deployments due to electrical or software glitches. These systems provide a voter-verifiable , enhancing auditability over purely methods, but tabulation software must be verified to prevent undetected errors. Ballot marking devices (BMDs) integrate with optical systems by allowing voters, particularly those with disabilities, to select choices via a interface, which then prints a corresponding marked —often including human-readable marks and machine-readable barcodes—for and subsequent scanning. This hybrid approach maintains a while aiding , as seen in devices like the AutoMARK, which support audio assistance and . However, reliability concerns arise from potential software vulnerabilities in the marking process, with experts noting risks of systematic errors if the device malfunctions or is compromised, potentially affecting all output ballots uniformly unlike variable hand-marking errors. Studies and demonstrations highlight that while BMD-generated ballots can be audited, the computerized marking step introduces dependencies on unverified code, prompting recommendations to prioritize hand-marked ballots for the general electorate to better preserve direct voter intent.

Direct-Recording Electronic (DRE) Machines

Direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting machines capture voter selections directly into electronic memory via touchscreens, buttons, or similar interfaces without generating a physical unless equipped with a (VVPAT). Voters interact with the device to choose candidates or options, which are then stored digitally and tallied electronically at the polling place or centrally. These systems emerged as alternatives to mechanical and paper-based methods, aiming to reduce in counting and improve . Following the 2000 U.S. presidential election disputes over punch-card ballots, the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) allocated funds for states to upgrade voting equipment, leading to widespread DRE adoption by the mid-2000s. By 2004, approximately 28% of U.S. registered voters used DRE systems, particularly in states like , , and . Manufacturers such as Diebold (later ), (ES&S), and Hart InterCivic supplied these machines, often praised for quick tabulation and features like audio ballots for visually impaired voters. DRE machines offer advantages in speed and for certain demographics; a 2006 study analyzing 2000 and 2004 presidential elections found that counties switching to touch-screen DREs experienced residual vote rates comparable to or lower than optical scan systems in some cases, with no evidence of systematic bias favoring one party. However, usability comparisons with traditional methods revealed higher error rates for complex ballots on DREs, particularly among less tech-savvy voters, due to interface issues like "ballot design fatigue." Security vulnerabilities have been a persistent concern, as DREs rely on that can be altered without if no VVPAT exists. Demonstrations at hacking conferences since 2017 exposed flaws in models from multiple vendors, including remote code execution and vote manipulation within minutes using physical access or . A 2016 experiment by Princeton researchers compromised a Diebold AccuVote-TS machine in under seven minutes, altering votes without detection. Without paper records, recounts merely replicate electronic tallies, precluding independent verification of voter intent, as noted in National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) analyses emphasizing the need for auditable trails. Empirical studies on DRE accuracy are limited by the opacity of closed-source and lack of routine audits, but post-election analyses, such as those following Georgia's , reported isolated glitches like vote flipping due to calibration errors, though not deemed outcome-altering. Organizations like Verified Voting argue that unverifiable DREs undermine public confidence, advocating replacement with paper-based systems. By 2022, over 40 U.S. states mandated paper ballots or VVPATs, prompting phase-out of pure DREs; for instance, decertified its statewide DREs in 2018 after reviews, shifting to models. Remaining deployments, often in smaller jurisdictions, incorporate VVPAT printers, but critics highlight ongoing risks from aging and unpatched software.

Hybrid and Emerging Digital Methods

Hybrid vote counting methods integrate paper records with digital tabulation to balance efficiency and auditability. Ballot marking devices (BMDs) allow electronic voter selection but produce scannable paper ballots, enabling optical scanning for initial counts while retaining manual verification options. These systems, such as the AutoMARK and Unisyn OpenElect, proliferated following the 2002 , which mandated accessible voting technologies, and by 2020 were used for all voters in numerous U.S. jurisdictions to accommodate disabilities and generate verifiable records. Voter-verified paper audit trails (VVPAT) hybridize direct-recording electronic (DRE) machines by attaching printers that generate paper summaries of votes for voter confirmation and archival storage. This paper output supports risk-limiting audits and recounts, mitigating risks of undetectable electronic errors or tampering inherent in ballotless DREs. Examples include hybrid optical scan/DRE configurations like the Hart InterCivic eScan A/T deployed in states such as . Emerging digital methods propose for immutable vote ledgers, aiming to decentralize tabulation and enhance transparency through distributed verification. Pilots, such as West Virginia's 2018 mobile voting trial using Voatz software, tested for overseas s but encountered security flaws, including unpatched vulnerabilities exploitable by researchers. Experts from and the U.S. Vote Foundation argue fails to guarantee end-to-end verifiability, as it relies on potentially compromised software for vote generation and does not inherently ensure secrecy or coercion resistance in counting processes. Despite theoretical tamper-resistance via cryptographic hashing, blockchain's application to vote counting introduces complexities like issues during high-volume elections and the need for trusted oracles to input physical ballots, without of superior reliability over paper-digital hybrids in large-scale deployments as of 2025. Adoption remains marginal, confined to small-scale or absentee experiments, due to these unresolved technical and security limitations.

Accuracy and Verification Mechanisms

Comparative Empirical Studies on Method Reliability

Empirical studies utilizing vote rates—defined as the proportion of ballots cast without a valid vote for a given , serving as a proxy for system-induced errors—have consistently demonstrated variations in reliability across . The Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project analyzed data from the 2000 U.S. across hundreds of counties, finding that punch-card systems exhibited the highest vote rates, averaging around 3%, compared to approximately 1.5% for lever machines and under 1% for optical scan systems. Direct-recording (DRE) systems showed rates comparable to or lower than optical scans in initial deployments, but subsequent analyses highlighted potential underreporting of errors due to the absence of auditable paper records in paperless DREs. Controlled experiments and post-election audits provide direct comparisons of tabulation accuracy. A study of New Hampshire's 2004 election hand-count audits reported machine tabulation error rates of about 0.5%, while hand counts yielded discrepancies up to 8%, attributed to human fatigue and interpretive errors in ambiguous marks. Similarly, a experiment simulating counting found participants accurately tallying votes in only 58% of cases across multiple races, equating to error rates exceeding 40%, underscoring hand counting's vulnerability to inconsistency in repetitive tasks. Optical scan machines, by contrast, maintained error rates below 0.1% in certification tests requiring accurate processing of millions of simulated votes, as mandated by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Comparative auditability further differentiates methods. A study evaluating optical , DRE with voter-verified paper trails (VVPAT), and paperless DREs concluded that optical systems enable more efficient , with audit sample sizes reduced by factors of 2-5 compared to DREs due to clearer voter intent capture on paper ballots. Paperless DREs, while exhibiting low mechanical tabulation errors in isolated tests (under 0.01%), lack empirical verifiability in large-scale discrepancies, as evidenced by challenges in reconstructing voter choices without records. Hand counts, though useful for targeted audits, amplify errors in full-scale applications; for instance, a 2022 Nye County, Nevada, hand recount of over 8,000 ballots produced up to 25% discrepancies against machine tallies, prompting abandonment of the method.
Voting MethodTypical Residual Vote Rate (2000-2004 Data)Tabulation Error Rate (Audits/Tests)Key Reliability Factor
Punch Card~3%1-2%High undervote due to issues
Lever Machine~1.5%<1%Mechanical jams, but consistent
Optical Scan<1%<0.1%Paper trail enables audits
DRE (Paperless)<1%<0.01% (tabulation), unverifiableSoftware risks undetected
Hand CountN/A (no residual proxy)8-25% in scale
These findings, drawn from peer-reviewed analyses and real-world audits, indicate that paper-based systems like optical scan offer superior overall reliability when paired with machine tabulation and audits, balancing speed, accuracy, and verifiability, whereas hand counts and paperless electronics falter under volume or scrutiny.

Auditing Techniques Including Risk-Limiting Audits

Post-election auditing techniques verify the accuracy of reported vote tallies by manually inspecting voter-verifiable paper records against electronic counts, ensuring discrepancies do not alter outcomes. These audits typically involve random sampling of ballots or precincts, with methods ranging from fixed-percentage samples to statistically driven approaches that adapt sample sizes based on observed error rates. Traditional audits, such as those examining a set proportion of precincts, provide limited assurance proportional to the sample size but may require full recounts if margins are narrow. Risk-limiting audits (RLAs) represent a statistically rigorous subset of these techniques, designed to confirm reported outcomes with a predefined maximum risk of error, typically set at 5% or 10%. Developed by statistician Philip B. Stark and collaborators, RLAs use sequential sampling: ballots are drawn randomly and hand-examined until the cumulative evidence either affirms the initial tally with the specified confidence or reveals sufficient discrepancies to warrant a full recount. This method bounds the "risk"—the probability of certifying an incorrect outcome—while minimizing unnecessary manual labor, often requiring examination of far fewer ballots than fixed audits when tallies are accurate. RLAs operate through variants like ballot-polling, which interprets voter intent directly from paper ballots without machine comparison, and ballot-comparison audits, which measure deviations between hand counts and readings for greater efficiency in systems with reliable . The sample size escalates with the margin's narrowness and the limit; for instance, in a close race, more ballots may be needed to achieve statistical certainty. Software tools, such as those from VotingWorks or Stark's algorithms, compute stopping conditions based on martingale tests or Bayesian-like metrics adapted for worst-case guarantees. Implementation began in Colorado in 2017 as the first statewide RLA program, following pilots that demonstrated feasibility with paper ballots; by 2023, at least 10 states including and had enacted RLA laws or conducted pilots, often tied to voter-verified paper trails. Empirical analyses of RLAs and similar audits in U.S. elections, including 2020 contests, have detected error rates below 0.01% in vote shifts, affirming machine tallies' reliability where paper records exist, though audits cannot detect unrecorded manipulations absent verifiable trails. Challenges include the necessity of high-quality paper ballots, interpreter agreement on ambiguous marks, and computational demands for multi-candidate races, but RLAs outperform fixed audits in efficiency and provable assurance, as validated by simulations showing reduced over-auditing in accurate elections.

Evidence from Audits in Recent U.S. Elections

Post-2020 U.S. audits in key states, including hand recounts, risk-limiting audits (RLAs), and forensic examinations, generally affirmed the accuracy of certified results, with discrepancies typically attributable to in manual counting rather than systemic . In , a full hand recount of approximately 5 million presidential ballots completed on November 19, 2020, reduced Joe Biden's margin over by about 1,300 votes but confirmed his victory by 11,779 votes. A subsequent RLA, the largest of its kind at the time, examined a sample of ballots and affirmed the machine tabulation with over 99% confidence, identifying minor issues like uncounted under-votes but no outcome-altering irregularities. In Arizona's Maricopa County, a Republican-led state Senate-commissioned conducted by Cyber Ninjas in 2021 reviewed ballots, equipment, and processes; it ultimately increased Biden's margin by 360 votes and found no evidence of widespread , despite initial claims of procedural lapses like unverified signatures on a small fraction of ballots. Maricopa County officials rebutted many audit assertions, noting that alleged discrepancies, such as duplicated ballots, stemmed from misunderstandings of files rather than manipulation, and reviews by the corroborated the absence of criminality. Wisconsin's nonpartisan Legislative Audit Bureau examined the 2020 election in 2021, concluding it was conducted safely and securely with no evidence of widespread fraud, though it recommended procedural improvements like restrictions on absentee ballot drop boxes. In Michigan, 250 county-level post-election audits in 2021, involving hand counts of precincts and ballot scanners, confirmed the integrity of results across the state, detecting only isolated tabulation errors correctable without affecting statewide outcomes. Broader analyses of 2020 audits across multiple states indicate minimal vote shifts, with a 2025 peer-reviewed study finding that post-election audits altered the net presidential vote count by approximately 0.007%, consistent with expected statistical variation and supporting the reliability of paper-based systems with audits. RLAs, implemented in states like and , provide statistical assurance that reported outcomes are correct with predefined risk limits, typically confirming tabulations after sampling a fraction of ballots. These audits, while revealing occasional local errors such as scanner misfeeds or observer challenges, consistently failed to uncover evidence of coordinated manipulation sufficient to alter certified results.

Major Controversies

2000 U.S. Presidential Election Recount

The 2000 U.S. presidential election recount in Florida centered on the state's 25 electoral votes, which proved decisive between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore. On November 7, 2000, initial machine tallies showed Bush leading by 1,784 votes out of approximately 6 million cast statewide, a margin under Florida's 0.5% threshold triggering an automatic machine recount. The recount narrowed Bush's lead to 327 votes by November 10, prompting Gore to request manual recounts in four Democratic-leaning counties—Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade—that used punch-card voting systems prone to undervotes, where no presidential choice was registered despite intent. These systems involved voters punching holes in paper ballots, often resulting in incomplete perforations known as "hanging chads," "dimpled chads," or "pregnant chads," which manual reviews sought to interpret based on varying local standards for voter intent. Controversies arose from inconsistent recount criteria across counties and ballot design flaws, notably Palm Beach County's "butterfly ballot," a two-page punch-card layout with candidates on facing panels and arrows between and third-party candidate , leading to an anomalously high 3,407 undervotes and 2,911 overvotes for Buchanan, far exceeding his typical support. 's team argued these undervotes reflected voter intent, seeking to count partially indented chads, while 's opposed selective manual recounts as arbitrary and incomplete. On November 21, the Supreme Court ordered a statewide manual recount of all undervotes, but certification proceeded on December 12 under federal deadlines, with ahead by 537 votes. The U.S. intervened in Bush v. (December 12, 2000), ruling 5-4 that the recount violated the due to subjective, non-uniform standards lacking statewide guidelines, halting further counting and affirming 's victory. Subsequent analyses by a media consortium, including the and a Norwegian research team, examined over 170,000 uncounted ballots under multiple standards. Under the Supreme Court's more lenient criteria (counting dimples and chads), Bush's margin expanded to 1,665 votes; even a full statewide recount of undervotes would have yielded Bush a win by at least 493 votes. Gore could have prevailed only in hypothetical scenarios limited to manual recounts in the four requested counties using the most permissive standards for dimples, a selective approach rejected during litigation. These findings underscored punch-card systems' error rates—up to 2-5% undervotes in affected counties—attributable to mechanical failures rather than , though inconsistent human judgment in manual processes amplified disputes. The episode exposed vulnerabilities in decentralized vote counting, prompting federal reforms like the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to phase out punch-cards and standardize provisional ballots.

2020 U.S. Election Disputes and Claims

Following the November 3, 2020, U.S. presidential election, incumbent President and his supporters raised allegations of widespread voter fraud and irregularities, primarily centered on expanded mail-in voting procedures implemented amid the , changes to ballot handling rules in several states, restricted observer access during counting, and potential malfunctions in electronic tabulation systems. These claims focused on swing states including , , , , and , where late-night reporting of mail-in ballots led to sharp shifts in vote tallies favoring after initial in-person results showed leads. asserted that the election was "stolen" through mechanisms like illegal ballot harvesting, duplicate votes, and manipulated voting machines from providers such as , which he claimed could flip votes or were linked to foreign interference. In response, the Trump campaign and allies filed at least 62 lawsuits challenging vote , processes, or validity across battleground states. Outcomes included dismissals in over 50 cases, often due to lack of standing, procedural failures, or insufficient evidence of impacting results; of the remainder, a few yielded minor procedural wins (e.g., extensions for curing ) but no reversals of state . and state , including Trump appointees, repeatedly ruled that allegations lacked substantiation, with one describing claims as speculative without "concrete evidence of error or ." Critics of the litigation process noted that many suits were filed post- deadlines or failed to present , though proponents argued courts avoided merits review by invoking technical barriers. State-led recounts and audits addressed specific disputes. In , a hand recount of over 5 million ballots confirmed Biden's 11,779-vote margin with only minor adjustments (e.g., 1,200 net votes shifted to Biden after resolving scanner discrepancies), finding no systemic . A high-profile claim involved surveillance video from in Fulton County, where election workers appeared to pull containers of ballots from under tables after observers departed on ; state investigations, including frame-by-frame , determined the containers held normal ballot bins processed legally after a water main break delayed counting, with no evidence of illicit votes or —Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, featured in the footage, were cleared of wrongdoing. In Arizona's Maricopa County, a Republican-commissioned by Cyber Ninjas re-examined ballots and machines; despite methodological criticisms (e.g., lack of chain-of-custody protocols), it affirmed Biden's win by increasing his margin by 360 votes, uncovering no widespread but noting unsubstantiated issues like potential non-resident . Other incidents fueled skepticism without proving outcome-altering fraud. Pennsylvania's aggregation of over 1 million mail ballots around 1-4 a.m. on November 4 in counties like Allegheny and created apparent "spikes" in Biden votes, but law prohibited pre-Election Day central counting, and officials confirmed these were lawful tabulations of legally cast ballots with no irregularities beyond expected Democratic mail voting. In Michigan's Antrim County, an initial tabulation error reported at 3,000 votes and Biden at 100 due to a clerk's to tabulator software; corrected within hours, forensic reviews by experts and analysts (e.g., J. Alex Halderman) verified accurate final results matching hand counts, attributing the glitch to , not machine manipulation. Claims against systems, including vote-switching algorithms or foreign ties, were examined by the (which deemed the election "the most secure in American history") and multiple audits, finding isolated clerical errors but no evidence of systemic rigging. Statistical analyses proffered as evidence included applications of to precinct-level vote tallies, with some studies reporting deviations in Biden-favoring counties (e.g., higher digit frequencies in swing states), suggesting potential data manipulation. However, election data often violates Benford's assumptions (e.g., non-independent precinct sizes, aggregated counts), and peer-reviewed critiques found no causal link to , as similar patterns appeared in prior elections without irregularities. Aggregate empirical audits across states shifted net presidential margins by less than 0.01%, supporting certification integrity despite procedural critiques like uneven observer access and rushed mail rules. While no claims demonstrated sufficient to overturn results, documented issues—such as unmonitored drop boxes in some locales and variances in signature verification—prompted post-2020 legislative reforms in states like and to enhance transparency.

Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities and Hacking Demonstrations

Electronic voting systems, including direct-recording electronic (DRE) machines and optical scanners, exhibit cybersecurity vulnerabilities such as outdated operating systems like or 2000, unpatched software flaws, weak default passwords, and exposed physical ports that enable unauthorized access. These issues persist due to legacy hardware designs prioritizing functionality over modern security standards, creating entry points for injection or vote manipulation via USB drives or network interfaces when present. The Voting Village, an annual hacking demonstration event since , has exposed these weaknesses through live exploits on real voting equipment from vendors like , ES&S, and Hart InterCivic. In , participants compromised machines to alter votes or extract data in under two hours, highlighting flaws like insufficient ballot encryption and remote access capabilities. By 2018, even novice hackers, including children, demonstrated physical tampering via accessible seams or ports, underscoring how brief physical access—possible in unsecured polling or storage environments—suffices for firmware replacement or ballot database corruption. Subsequent years, up to 2024, revealed ongoing issues, such as unencrypted memory cards and supply chain risks, with hackers identifying over 50 unique vulnerabilities across devices, though organizers note these controlled demos assume insider or opportunistic access rather than remote, undetectable nationwide attacks. Prominent academic demonstrations include those by J. Alex Halderman, a professor, who in a January 2024 Georgia federal trial live-hacked a ImageCast X ballot-marking device. Using a and , Halderman replaced the firmware in approximately two minutes, enabling vote shifts without detectable traces on paper summaries, as the system prioritizes QR codes over human-readable text for tabulation. This built on his 2017 congressional testimony hacking a Diebold machine in seven minutes via USB, illustrating persistent risks in systems lacking verifiable paper trails or . Halderman's work, corroborated by analysis, emphasizes that while air-gapping reduces remote threats, physical or insider exploits remain feasible, potentially propagating via infected ballots or tabulators in precincts. U.S. (CISA) advisories confirm vendor-specific flaws, such as in Dominion's Democracy Suite ImageCast X (versions through 5.5-A as of June 2022), where improper input validation and hardcoded credentials allow execution or denial-of-service if devices connect to networks or peripherals. Similar exploits have targeted ES&S software, including in voter databases, though federal assessments stress no verified instances of altered vote tallies in U.S. elections despite these demonstrations. Experts attribute unexploited potential to layered defenses like paper audits, but warn that unaddressed vulnerabilities erode trust, particularly when machines process millions of ballots without routine source- audits or penetration testing.

Legal and Regulatory Frameworks

U.S. Federal Legislation and Standards

The Constitution grants states primary authority over the administration of elections, including vote counting procedures, under Article I, Section 4, with federal intervention limited to establishing minimum standards for systems used in federal elections to ensure basic accuracy and verifiability. The core federal framework stems from the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002, signed into law on October 29, 2002, following the 2000 presidential election's tabulation disputes in , which highlighted punch-card machine failures and lack of audit trails. HAVA mandates that, by January 1, 2006, states replace direct recording electronic (DRE) systems lacking paper records with compliant alternatives for federal elections, focusing on systems that produce tangible evidence of votes to enable manual verification against automated tabulation. HAVA Title III, Section 301, requires voting systems to generate a "permanent paper record with a manual audit capacity" for each ballot, verifiable by the voter privately and independently before finalization, with an error rate not exceeding one per 500,000 ballots for vote tabulation positions. This provision causally supports post-election audits by decoupling reliance on potentially fallible software from outcome determination, as discrepancies between machine tallies and hand recounts of paper artifacts can be quantified and resolved empirically. Systems must also accommodate voters with disabilities through accessible interfaces, such as audio ballots with safeguards, indirectly aiding uniform counting by reducing uncountable ballots from failures. Non-compliance risks withholding federal election grants, though states retain discretion in implementation, leading to varied adoption rates. Section 302 of HAVA standardizes provisional balloting nationwide: individuals attesting eligibility but absent from poll books must receive provisional ballots, counted only upon verification of registration and identity within a reasonable -defined period, typically 2–10 days post-election. This addresses counting disputes from incomplete voter rolls without preempting eligibility rules, with courts upholding it as a safeguard against disenfranchisement while permitting rejection of invalid provisionals based on like signature mismatches. The Election Assistance Commission (EAC), created under HAVA Title II, maintains a national clearinghouse and accredits testing labs to certify systems against Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG), which operationalize HAVA's mandates. VVSG 2.0, adopted February 10, 2021, and mandatory for new certifications since November 16, 2023, incorporates 10 high-level principles including accurate tabulation (e.g., systems must demonstrably count votes without over- or under-reporting via simulated election tests) and evidence-based integrity (e.g., cryptographic protections against result alteration and support for risk-limiting audits). Prior versions (VVSG 1.0 in 2005, 1.1 in 2015) emphasized similar functionality but lacked VVSG 2.0's explicit security principles, such as source code review for vulnerabilities; legacy systems remain usable unless states mandate upgrades. These guidelines do not dictate counting methods—e.g., optical scanners versus hand tallies—but require certified systems to facilitate verifiable aggregation, with labs conducting end-to-end tests simulating high-volume tabulation (up to millions of ballots) to confirm <0.0002% residual error rates. Supplementary laws indirectly influence counting integrity: the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), as amended by the 2009 MOVE Act, mandates states accept and tabulate federal write-in absentee ballots from military personnel, with deadlines tied to state certification dates. The 2022 Electoral Count Reform Act clarifies congressional procedures for tallying state-certified electoral votes but does not regulate underlying ballot counts. Overall, federal standards prioritize -trail auditability over prescriptive counting protocols, reflecting a decentralized approach where empirical post-tabulation checks, rather than uniform machinery, guard against errors or , though critics argue lax enforcement has allowed persistent DRE use in some jurisdictions without full backups.

State-Level Variations and Post-2020 Reforms

Vote counting procedures in the United States exhibit substantial variation across states, primarily due to decentralized authority granted to state legislatures under the U.S. Constitution. As of 2024, most states employ optical scan tabulators to process paper ballots, with direct-recording electronic (DRE) machines largely phased out in favor of systems providing voter-verifiable paper records. Processing of mail-in ballots differs markedly; for instance, law prohibits opening or scanning mail ballots until after 7:00 p.m. on , often resulting in delayed reporting of results from urban areas. In contrast, approximately 18 states, including and , permit full tabulation of mail ballots weeks prior to , enabling faster certification. Provisional ballots, issued when voter eligibility is uncertain, face varying acceptance criteria and rejection rates, with states like requiring boards of elections to verify them post-. Post-2020 reforms, enacted largely by Republican-controlled legislatures in response to of widespread irregularities—claims refuted by multiple audits and over 60 rulings—focused on enhancing and limiting perceived vulnerabilities in mail voting. Georgia's (SB 202), signed March 25, 2021, introduced voter ID requirements for absentee ballots, restricted drop boxes to one per 100,000 registered voters at locations, and authorized processing of absentee ballots 15 days before while mandating audits of at least 5% of ballots or risk-limiting audits (RLAs) for contests with margins under 0.5%. Florida's SB 90, enacted May 6, 2021, prohibited unsolicited mass mailing of ballots, limited drop boxes to supervised sites, shortened the absentee ballot cure period from two days to none, and required precinct-level reporting of vote totals by method. These measures aimed to standardize chain-of-custody protocols and reduce opportunities for error or tampering, though from subsequent elections, including Georgia's 2022 midterms, showed no significant impact on turnout or integrity beyond administrative efficiencies. Several states expanded post-election auditing requirements post-2020 to bolster confidence in tabulation accuracy. , which statistically sample paper ballots to confirm electronic results with a specified (typically 5-10%), became mandatory in for all statewide races since 2017 but saw adoption or pilots elsewhere; implemented RLAs for close races under SB 202, while required them for federal contests starting in 2022. Texas's SB 1 (2021) funded county-level audits and prohibited unverified voting systems, emphasizing paper ballots. Democratic-led states like , conversely, enacted laws in 2022-2023 permitting earlier mail ballot processing—up to eight days pre-Election Day—to expedite counting without compromising . Overall, by 2024, 47 states required some form of post-election audit, up from prior years, reflecting a on paper-based as a safeguard against machine errors, though implementation rigor varies.

International Approaches to Vote Counting Integrity

Various international approaches to vote counting emphasize manual tabulation of ballots to ensure and verifiability, often supplemented by multi-party observers and post-election audits. Organizations like the OSCE recommend that counting occur openly in the presence of witnesses, with procedures to maintain ballot secrecy while allowing verification of totals against voter registers. The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) outlines standards requiring legal frameworks to mandate accurate aggregation, reconciliation of ballots cast with those issued, and mechanisms for recounts in close races. These practices prioritize empirical safeguards over speed, as manual processes reduce risks of systemic errors or manipulation compared to unverified electronic systems. In , the (AEC) conducts counting starting at 6:00 p.m. on election night, with initial at polling places followed by centralized processing; ballots are sorted by preference, manually counted in teams of at least three officials, and verified through cross-checks and preferential distribution algorithms for proportional seats. Party scrutineers and independent observers attend all stages, ensuring chain-of-custody from sealed ballot boxes transported under security protocols. Recounts occur automatically if margins are under 0.5% or upon petition, as demonstrated in the 2016 Herbert electorate where a recount shifted the result by two votes after re-examining 55,000 ballots. Germany relies exclusively on manual counting at local polling stations immediately after polls close, with ballots tallied committees comprising representatives from multiple parties; totals are publicly announced on-site, recorded in protocols signed by all participants, and aggregated upward to and levels without tabulation devices following a 2009 Constitutional Court ruling that invalidated machines for lacking verifiable . This approach, applied in the 2021 where over 61 million votes were hand-counted across 299 constituencies, minimizes centralized vulnerabilities but requires extensive volunteer involvement. Canada's mandates manual tabulation by deputy returning officers in the presence of scrutineers from registered parties and candidates, with ballots sorted into piles, counted in batches of 50, and reconciled against poll books; results are validated through duplicate recording and transmission via secure phone lines or in-person delivery. Judicial recounts are triggered for races under 0.1% margin, as in the 2008 Guelph where a full manual recheck confirmed the initial outcome after examining 25,000 ballots. These procedures, unchanged since the Elections Act's reforms, incorporate tamper-evident seals on boxes and prohibitions on photography to preserve integrity. Estonia employs internet voting for up to 44% of ballots in elections, as in when 268,000 i-votes were cast, using asymmetric and ID to generate verifiable receipts; voters can override i-votes in person, with the last valid vote prevailing, and is publicly auditable post-election. However, independent analyses, including a 2014 study, have identified vulnerabilities such as potential manipulation by compromised clients or servers without detection, prompting upgrades like multi-layer in the IVXV tested in 2017 municipal elections. Despite official claims of robustness, ongoing OSCE reviews highlight gaps in end-to-end verifiability compared to paper-based manual counting.

Best Practices for Maximizing Integrity

Evidence-Based Safeguards and Protocols

Software- voting systems, particularly those utilizing hand-marked paper ballots, form a foundational safeguard by enabling direct voter and auditing of results. These systems produce a tangible record resistant to undetectable software manipulation, as voters can confirm their selections before submission. Empirical analyses demonstrate that paper ballots mitigate risks associated with direct-recording (DRE) machines, which lack auditable trails and have been shown vulnerable to in controlled demonstrations. A 2018 National Academies report emphasized that paper-based systems, when paired with audits, provide stronger evidence of outcome accuracy compared to purely methods, drawing on vulnerability assessments and historical error rates in non-paper jurisdictions. Risk-limiting audits (RLAs) offer a statistically rigorous to confirm reported outcomes with predefined confidence levels, typically limiting the risk of certifying an incorrect result to 5-10%. Developed through mathematical frameworks, RLAs involve random sampling of paper ballots until sufficient evidence affirms or contests the electronic tally, scaling sample size based on reported margins. Pilots and implementations, such as Colorado's statewide RLAs since 2017, have verified results without requiring full recounts, with statistical models showing detection probabilities exceeding 99% for discrepancies altering winners. Compliance audits precede RLAs to ensure ballots meet procedural standards, addressing causal factors like tabulation errors observed in past elections, such as overvotes in optical-scan systems. Chain-of-custody protocols for ballots and , involving documented transfers, , and dual-party , prevent unauthorized and tampering. While primarily procedural, their effectiveness is evidenced by forensic reconstructions in disputed counts, where unbroken chains enabled and refuted alteration claims in audits. Bipartisan observer teams during counting phases enhance , with guidelines ensuring without disruption; historical from U.S. indicate low incidence under such oversight, though empirical quantification remains challenging due to rarity of detectable events. These protocols collectively prioritize causal safeguards—verifiable and probabilistic confirmation—over unproven technological dependencies, as validated in peer-reviewed frameworks.

Balancing Speed, Cost, and Accuracy Trade-Offs

Vote counting systems must navigate inherent trade-offs among speed, which affects public confidence and timely governance transitions; cost, encompassing equipment, personnel, and maintenance; and accuracy, measured by error rates and verifiability against voter intent. from U.S. elections indicates that fully hand counting prioritizes accuracy through direct human verification but sacrifices speed and escalates costs due to . For instance, hand counting paper ballots typically processes around 100 to 200 ballots per hour per counter, requiring teams of observers and extending tabulation from hours to days or weeks in large jurisdictions. In contrast, optical scan machines tabulate thousands of ballots per hour with error rates below 0.1% when properly calibrated, enabling faster results while maintaining a for audits. Cost analyses reveal that hand counting demands significant staffing—often 10 to 20 times more personnel than machine-assisted methods—leading to overtime expenses and recruitment challenges, particularly in jurisdictions with millions of ballots. A 2024 assessment estimated that full hand counts in major U.S. counties could cost millions per election due to these labor demands, compared to optical systems where initial equipment investments amortize over multiple cycles at lower per-ballot operational costs. Machine tabulation reduces these burdens but introduces upfront capital outlays, such as $1-2 million for precinct scanners in mid-sized areas, offset by efficiencies in high-volume elections. Accuracy in manual processes suffers from human factors like fatigue and subjectivity, with studies documenting error rates of 1-4% in prolonged counts, exceeding those of well-maintained machines. Hybrid approaches, such as voter-marked paper ballots scanned optically followed by risk-limiting audits (RLAs), optimize these trade-offs by leveraging machine speed for initial tallies while using statistical sampling for , achieving over 99% in results with minimal additional time—typically 1-2% of ballots audited. Post-2020 audits across U.S. states confirmed counts deviated by less than 0.01% from hand-verified samples, underscoring the efficacy of this balance without resorting to full manual recounts. Internationally, smaller nations like those in employ hand counts for transparency in low-volume polls but face delays, while larger systems favor automation with audits to mitigate risks. Jurisdictions prioritizing speed, as in early-reporting precincts, often centralize tabulation post-polls, trading minor delays for aggregated efficiency, though this amplifies costs if extended litigation ensues from perceived inaccuracies.
Counting MethodApproximate Speed (ballots/hour)Relative Cost per ElectionTypical Error Rate
Full Hand Count100-200 per personHigh (labor-intensive)1-4%
Optical Scan MachineThousands (centralized)Medium (equipment amortized)<0.1%
Hybrid with RLAMachine speed + audit sampleLow-Medium<0.01% (verified)
These trade-offs necessitate context-specific choices: small rural precincts may afford hand counts for trust-building at the expense of speed, whereas urban areas rely on machines to handle scale, supplemented by protocols like bipartisan observation to enhance accuracy without proportional cost increases. Empirical data from jurisdictions using RLAs, such as since 2017, demonstrate that accuracy gains from audits outweigh speed losses, with total tabulation times remaining under 48 hours in most cases.

Future Directions

Technological Advancements and Pilots

Advancements in vote tabulation technology have increasingly incorporated optical scanning systems with enhanced image processing capabilities to improve speed and accuracy in processing paper ballots. High-speed , capable of tabulating thousands of ballots per hour, have been deployed in various jurisdictions, reducing handling and potential human error while maintaining verifiable paper records. For instance, systems like those from Votem's CastIron platform integrate central tabulation hubs with peripheral features for real-time data aggregation, though empirical testing remains limited to controlled environments rather than nationwide scales. Artificial intelligence applications in vote counting focus primarily on automated adjudication of ambiguous or damaged ballots, using (OCR) and to interpret voter marks without altering the . This approach allows for minimally invasive processing of handwritten or irregular ballots, potentially accelerating counts while deferring final decisions to human oversight for disputed cases. A system employing for character recognition has been proposed to enable voters to continue using ballots, with the handling initial to flag issues for review, thereby balancing efficiency with auditability. However, such tools require rigorous validation against error rates in diverse samples, as unproven models risk introducing biases or inaccuracies not present in methods. Blockchain-based systems have been piloted for electronic voting and tabulation to enable tamper-evident ledgers and remote participation, but large-scale implementation faces substantial security hurdles. In West Virginia, the Voatz platform, utilizing blockchain for mobile voting, was tested in the 2018 federal election for overseas and military voters, recording votes on a distributed ledger to purportedly ensure immutability; subsequent expansions occurred in limited trials, yet independent analyses highlight vulnerabilities in endpoint devices and voter authentication that blockchain alone cannot resolve. Critics, including election security experts, argue that blockchain provides no inherent protection against malware on voter devices or coercion in unsupervised settings, rendering it unsuitable for high-stakes public elections without verifiable end-to-end encryption and physical proofs. Recent surveys of blockchain e-voting prototypes emphasize cryptographic enhancements for vote privacy and verifiability, but empirical pilots remain confined to low-risk scenarios, with no evidence of scalability to national elections as of 2025. In the Philippines, the Commission on Elections demonstrated prototype automated counting machines in June 2024 for the 2025 midterm polls, featuring upgraded transmission modules and faster precinct-level tabulation to address delays in prior elections; these machines aim to process optical scan ballots with improved error detection, though full deployment depends on and field testing outcomes. Similarly, in , counties adopted high-tech tabulation systems by November 2024 to expedite central counting, incorporating software for and real-time result previews, which reduced tabulation times in simulations but require post-election audits to confirm accuracy. These pilots underscore a trend toward systems combining efficiency with paper-based verifiability, yet adoption hinges on demonstrated resilience against demonstrated hacking risks, as unaddressed software flaws could undermine public confidence.

Reforms Addressing Empirical Gaps in Security and Efficiency

Risk-limiting audits (RLAs) represent a statistically grounded reform to verify election outcomes without necessitating full manual recounts, addressing empirical gaps where machine tabulation errors or manipulations could go undetected. RLAs involve randomly sampling paper ballots to test the reported results against a predefined risk limit, typically 5-10%, providing high-confidence confirmation or triggering further scrutiny if discrepancies arise. Implemented in states like Colorado since 2017, RLAs have confirmed results efficiently; for instance, in Colorado's 2018 audits, sample sizes averaged under 5% of ballots due to large victory margins, balancing verification rigor with resource demands. Empirical evaluations, such as those in Rhode Island's 2016 pilot, demonstrated RLAs' ability to detect overvotes or undervotes missed by initial counts, enhancing security by empirically bounding the risk of incorrect certifications to below the limit. Reforms mandating voter-verified paper ballots or trails fill gaps in direct-voter and post-election , countering vulnerabilities in direct-recording (DRE) systems lacking physical . The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine recommended in 2018 that all elections use paper ballots interpretable by voters and officials, citing evidence from jurisdictions with paper trails where audits resolved discrepancies from scanner errors, such as misreads in optical scanners. Post-2020, states like upgraded to hand-marked paper ballots with optical scanners, enabling hand recounts that matched machine tallies within minimal variances (e.g., 0.01% in Fulton County), empirically demonstrating improved accuracy and public trust through transparent verification. This shift addresses efficiency gaps by allowing faster initial tabulation via scanners while retaining auditability, unlike pure DRE systems prone to unrecoverable errors. Decentralized counting protocols, such as precinct-level tabulation before aggregation, mitigate risks from centralized facilities where delays and custody lapses have empirically prolonged processes and fueled distrust. In empirical cases like Georgia's 2020 hand recount, decentralized initial counts at 159 counties reduced aggregation bottlenecks, with discrepancies limited to human errors resolvable locally (e.g., 0.2% variance statewide). Reforms incorporating bipartisan observers and real-time chain-of-custody logging, as adopted in several states post-2020, empirically curb unauthorized access; for example, Texas's 2021 laws requiring video surveillance and dual-party seals on ballot containers prevented tampering claims by providing verifiable logs. These measures enhance efficiency by minimizing centralized error amplification, as smaller-scale counts allow quicker anomaly detection, supported by studies showing lower error rates in distributed versus hub-based systems. Hybrid approaches combining technology with manual safeguards address trade-offs in speed and security, such as pilot programs for ballot-on-demand printing with immediate . California's RLAs since 2018 have integrated software-assisted sampling with hand , reducing audit times by 40% compared to full hand counts while maintaining empirical limits. Ongoing reforms emphasize training and standardization to close human-error gaps, with evidence from indicating that standardized protocols cut recount variances by over 50%. These evidence-based adjustments prioritize causal factors like observable trails over unproven innovations, ensuring reforms empirically bolster without undue delays.

References

  1. [1]
    Election Results, Canvass, and Certification
    Have you ever wondered what happens to your ballot after you get your I Voted Sticker? After the polls close, ballots and electronic vote records are ...
  2. [2]
    https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/electionofficials/postelection/Guide_to_the_Canvass_EAC.pdf
  3. [3]
    Moving to Evidence-Based Elections | National Academies
    Mar 16, 2023 · We describe how the use of paper ballots and postelection audits can improve election transparency and help inform public discourse.
  4. [4]
    Why paper is considered state-of-the-art voting technology | Brookings
    Aug 14, 2019 · The SAFE Act requires that all voting machines involve “the use of an individual, durable, voter-verified paper ballot of the voter's vote.”
  5. [5]
    Statistical detection of systematic election irregularities - PNAS
    Sep 24, 2012 · Center shows a fit with the fraud model. Right shows the expected model outcome of fair elections (i.e., absence of fraudulent mechanisms fi = f ...
  6. [6]
    [PDF] Notes on Voting in Athens - Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies
    UNTIL RECENTLY it has been assumed that in the Athenian . assembly, whether the vote was taken by ballot or by show of hands, a precise count was made of ...<|separator|>
  7. [7]
    Ancient Greeks Voted to Kick Politicians Out of Athens if Enough ...
    Oct 27, 2020 · Ballots that date more than two millennia old tell the story of ostracism.Missing: methods | Show results with:methods
  8. [8]
    How People Voted in Ancient Elections - History.com
    Nov 4, 2022 · In Athens and Rome, voting could entail shouting contests, secret stone ballots and an election system with built-in ...
  9. [9]
    How the Romans Voted in the Roman Republic - ThoughtCo
    May 13, 2025 · Being eligible to vote in a Roman election did not guarantee that your vote counted for as much as the guy at the next voting enclosure.
  10. [10]
    How long was the longest conclave? Facts about the secret voting to ...
    May 2, 2025 · The secret vote that elected Pope Gregory X lasted from November 1268 to September 1271. It was the first example of a papal election by “ ...
  11. [11]
    [PDF] Strategy and Manipulation in Medieval Elections
    Abstract. When developing electoral protocols, desiderata include a system which is transparent, non-manipulable, honest, and not open to strategizing.
  12. [12]
    How did they count ballots before voting machines?
    Nov 8, 2016 · The vote-counting process in the 19th century was complex, unstandardized, and vulnerable to corruption. Counting practices varied from ...
  13. [13]
    Elections and Voting in the 19th Century - UK Parliament
    This section explores the way in which Parliament responded to calls for electoral reform in the 19th century.
  14. [14]
    Protecting the ballot from corruption in 19th-century Europe
    Feb 27, 2023 · Political scientist Isabela Mares discusses her book, which examines the incentives that led politicians to pass electoral reforms in ...
  15. [15]
    Voting Machine History - NCVOA
    Nov 1, 2022 · The first mechanical lever voting machine debuted in the 1892 election in Lockport, New York. By the 1960s, more than half the country's elections were ...
  16. [16]
    [PDF] Lessons from the Early History of Voting Machines - University of Iowa
    Gardner, Voting Machine. The first patents for voting systems were not targeted at the polling place. Rather, inventors focused on votes in legislative chambers ...
  17. [17]
    Gear and Lever Voting Machine, 1978 - The Henry Ford
    Gear and lever voting machines were the quintessential method of voting for two generations of Americans, from the 1920s through the 1980s.<|separator|>
  18. [18]
    Voting Equipment Database – ES&S Votomatic
    The Votomatic was the last punch card voting system used in American elections—last used in two counties in Idaho in the 2014 general election ...
  19. [19]
    Voting System Standards, Testing and Certification
    Provides an overview of voting equipment used nationwide, the standards that voting machines are held to, and the process for testing and certifying that ...
  20. [20]
    Help America Vote Act - U.S. Election Assistance Commission
    The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 was passed by the United States Congress to make sweeping reforms to the nation's voting process.
  21. [21]
    The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA): An Overview
    Sep 30, 2025 · Congress's response to those findings, in HAVA, spanned a correspondingly wide range of elections topics, from voting systems to voter ...
  22. [22]
    Voting technology - MIT Election Lab
    Apr 21, 2023 · Voting uses technologies that range from hand-counted paper ballots to electronic voting machines resembling bank ATMs.
  23. [23]
    Risk-Limiting Audits - National Conference of State Legislatures
    Risk-limiting audits are one version of a postelection audit, and a version that is growing in interest among election officials and legislators.What Are Risk-Limiting Audits? · Components of an RLA · Types of RLAs
  24. [24]
    Audits of the 2020 American election show an accurate vote count
    May 13, 2025 · We find that election audits shifted the net presidential vote count by only about 0.007%, with similarly minuscule errors across all major types of electoral ...
  25. [25]
    Post-Election Audits - National Conference of State Legislatures
    A post-election tabulation audit—often known as a post-election audit or PEA—checks that the equipment and procedures used to count votes during an election ...Missing: timeline | Show results with:timeline
  26. [26]
    How Vote Counting Rules Have Changed in Key States Since 2020
    Sep 24, 2024 · Most notably, Michigan now allows election workers to begin processing and tabulating mail ballots before Election Day. Processing typically ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
  27. [27]
    Post-Election Audits | MIT Election Lab
    Sep 4, 2024 · Post-election audits are critical for election security and voter confidence in contests large and small, national and local. Consequently, most ...
  28. [28]
    [PDF] Standards for Determining Voter Intent
    If a voter does not mark a choice for candidate, judicial retention or ballot measure in a race, the valid votes for other candidates or issues on the same ...
  29. [29]
    Voter Intent Laws - National Conference of State Legislatures
    By law, all eligible ballots should be counted in an election. Yet sometimes questions arise about the eligibility of a ballot. Eligibility of a ballot is ...
  30. [30]
    [PDF] Voter Intent Guide - Arizona Secretary of State
    Jul 23, 2024 · The Office strives for accuracy in our publications. If you find an error, please contact us at (602) 542-8683 or 1-877-THE-VOTE (843-8683) ...
  31. [31]
    Vote Counting and Tabulation - Election Standards | The Carter Center
    Counting Cast Ballots. Key Obligations: Universal Suffrage; Right and Opportunity to Be Elected. The state took proactive measures to promote voting by the ...
  32. [32]
    [PDF] Election Observation Handbook - OSCE
    This handbook sets out the ODIHR's observation methodology and serves as a reference for all ODIHR election observers.1 It informs the OSCE community at large, ...
  33. [33]
    [PDF] Chain of Custody Best Practices
    Jul 12, 2021 · This report outlines items election officials should consider when developing or revising their chain of custody procedures for physical ...
  34. [34]
    [PDF] Chain of Custody Your Evidence Trail for Secure Ballot Management
    Election officials must be able to prove they were in control of ballots and voting equipment at all times. Strong chain of custody procedures and documentation ...
  35. [35]
    Brief Policies for Election Observers
    Political parties, candidates, citizen groups and independent organizations may deploy observers or watchers to witness election processes in the U.S. ...
  36. [36]
    [PDF] A Guide to Election Observer Policies in the United States
    In the U.S., voters can serve as election observers for the parties they support. Appointed by political parties, candidates or ballot issue groups, these.
  37. [37]
    [PDF] Election Observers
    Poll watchers, sometimes referred to as "election observers", are individuals who may observe steps in the election process. Each state has its own laws and ...
  38. [38]
    Election Observations Rights and Responsibilities
    An election observer shall have the right to observe the processing of vote-by-mail identification envelopes and vote-by-mail ballots pursuant to Elections ...
  39. [39]
    About Federal Observers And Election Monitoring
    The Voting Rights Act permits federal observers to monitor procedures in polling places and at sites where ballots are counted in eligible political ...
  40. [40]
    What is the Role of Poll Watchers? | Bipartisan Policy Center
    Sep 6, 2024 · Observation of the voting and ballot counting processes ensures that all rules and procedures are followed fairly and that no one candidate ...
  41. [41]
    [PDF] Operational Transparency Increases Trust in Elections and Voter ...
    (2022). Two Years After Election Turmoil, GOP Voters Remain Skeptical on Elections, Vote Counts. Pew Research Center - U.S.. Politics & Policy https:// ...
  42. [42]
    Operational Transparency Increases Trust in Elections and Voter ...
    Jul 21, 2025 · Trust in elections is a critical factor in the stability of democratic institutions, and recent declines in election confidence highlight a ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  43. [43]
    What a New Study Says About Releasing Ballots
    Mar 12, 2025 · Individual ballot records promise to increase the transparency of election ... Kuriwaki, an assistant professor of political science who studies ...
  44. [44]
    Privacy violations in election results - PMC - PubMed Central
    Mar 12, 2025 · We show that the release of individual ballot records would lead to no revelation of any vote choice for 99.83% of voters as compared to 99.95% under Maricopa' ...
  45. [45]
    United in Security: How Every State Protects Your Vote
    In collaboration with Issue One and the R Street Institute, we detail the security and integrity protections that make American elections strong, resilient, ...<|separator|>
  46. [46]
    [PDF] Election Audits Across the United States
    Jul 28, 2021 · The law required election officials to hand count ballots in one percent of precincts that used a voting system to tally election results. The ...
  47. [47]
    The Reality of Full Hand Counts: A Guide for Election Officials
    Feb 6, 2024 · This report was written and designed in partnership between the States United Democracy Center and The Elections Group. Hand counting has a ...Missing: techniques | Show results with:techniques
  48. [48]
    [PDF] Virginia's Guide to Hand-Counting Ballots
    The majority of ballots for an election will not be hand- counted. Hand-counting ballots should be considered only when the ballot cannot be read by the voting ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
  49. [49]
    Hand Counted Paper Ballots - Verified Voting
    Hand counting paper ballots is usually conducted in smaller jurisdictions: In 2024, less than 0.17% of registered voters in the U.S. live in election ...
  50. [50]
    Application of Technology - ACE Electoral Knowledge Network
    While the use of manually counted paper ballots is still the most common method of voting, automated methods of voting and vote counting are becoming more ...
  51. [51]
    [PDF] Risk-Limiting Audits - The Carter Center
    In contrast with more traditional post-election tabulation audits that sample voting machines or precincts, the RLA samples individual ballots or batches of.
  52. [52]
    Hand Counting Ballots | Brennan Center for Justice
    Jul 29, 2024 · Nearly all election jurisdictions across the country use voting machines to count ballots because they are more accurate, faster, and cheaper than counting all ...
  53. [53]
    Taiwan's manual ballot counting ensures transparency: Observers
    Jan 14, 2024 · Taiwan's manual method of counting votes, where poll workers read out each ballot while displaying them for public scrutiny, contributes to ...
  54. [54]
    Manually counting ballots in Block Vote systems - ACE
    The best way to manually count ballot papers in block vote (BV) systems? With first-past-the-post systems, one can easily pile the ballots for each candidate, ...
  55. [55]
    [PDF] Election Night Hand Counts: Realities and Risks - Verified Voting
    be used, and emphasizes why common-sense best practices that employ voting machines and post-election audits make our election outcomes verifiable and resilient ...
  56. [56]
    Hand counts of votes may cause errors, says new Rice U. study
    Feb 2, 2012 · “Post-Election Auditing: Effects of Election Procedure and Ballot Type on Manual Counting Accuracy, Efficiency and Auditor Satisfaction and ...Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
  57. [57]
    https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/96548/vtp_wp11.pdf
  58. [58]
    https://cwlasvegas.com/news/beyond-the-podium/nye-county-ballot-hand-count-likely-wont-make-thursday-deadline-mark-kampf-southern-nevada-aclu-supreme-court-election-midterms-ballots
  59. [59]
    https://accurate-voting.rice.edu/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/evt07-goggin.pdf
  60. [60]
    Ballot Hand Counts Lead to Inaccuracy - Voting Rights Lab
    Feb 27, 2024 · The growing push in some states to ban electronic tabulation machines and force the hand counting of ballots.
  61. [61]
    Voting Technologies in the United States: Overview and Issues for ...
    Currently, five different kinds of voting technologies are used: hand-counted paper ballots, mechanical lever machines, computer punchcards (Votomatic and ...Missing: digital | Show results with:digital
  62. [62]
    Election Technology Through the Years
    Nov 8, 2023 · This subsequently allowed many voters to cast their vote multiple times. Although the Acme Voting Machine was great at tabulating votes and ...
  63. [63]
    [PDF] Statistical Analysis of Factors That Affected Uncounted Votes ... - GAO
    Oct 15, 2001 · Following the 2000 presidential election, a number of issues have been raised concerning the election process, including the limitations of ...
  64. [64]
    [PDF] Residual Votes Attributable to Technology
    We examine the relative performance of voting technologies by studying presidential, gubernatorial, and senatorial election returns across hundreds of ...
  65. [65]
    The Counting and Recounting of Pre-Scored Punchcard Ballots
    Aug 7, 2025 · ... election in Florida. Much of the research literature has focused on various measures of how accurately voting machines record voter ...Missing: mechanism | Show results with:mechanism
  66. [66]
    Voting Machines: History, Progress, and Challenges - FindLaw
    Mar 8, 2024 · The Australian Paper Ballot. During the mid-19th century, partisan paper ballots were prominent. This led to rampant accusations of voter fraud.
  67. [67]
    Pulling the Lever for Paper - Verified Voting
    Nov 16, 2010 · Author: Bo Lipari. The 2010 elections quietly marked a milestone in election technology history. For the first time in over a hundred years, ...
  68. [68]
    [DOC] Unaccounted Votes Attributable to Voting Machines - DSpace@MIT
    In gubernatorial and senatorial races, paper, optical scan ballots, and DREs are significantly better in minimizing the residual vote rate than mechanical lever ...
  69. [69]
    [PDF] Usability of Voting Systems: Baseline Data for Paper, Punch Cards ...
    May 3, 2007 · We report an experiment assessing the usability of punch cards, lever machines, and two forms of paper ballot. There were no differences in ...Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
  70. [70]
    [PDF] HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT OF 2002 - Congress.gov
    Oct 29, 2002 · To establish a program to provide funds to States to replace punch card voting systems, to establish the Election Assistance Commission to ...
  71. [71]
    H.R.3295 - 107th Congress (2001-2002): Help America Vote Act of ...
    Declares that States that do not require voter registration for Federal elections may meet these provisional voting requirements using voter registration ...
  72. [72]
    The Help America Vote Act: 20 Years Later
    Jun 1, 2022 · It's no secret that the delay in determining the 2000 presidential victor put election administration on the federal agenda for the first ...
  73. [73]
    EAVS Deep Dive: Election Technology
    May 1, 2018 · The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) administers the biennial Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS) to collect state-by-state ...
  74. [74]
    [PDF] Voting system failures: a database solution
    The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law is a non-partisan public policy and law institute that focuses on fundamental issues of ...
  75. [75]
    Optical Scanning Systems - ACE Electoral Knowledge Network
    Voters using machine-readable ballots are given a ballot card with the names of candidates printed on it. Next to each candidate a symbol is printed, such as a ...
  76. [76]
    Brennan Center Overview of Voting Equipment
    May 31, 2018 · Optical/Digital Scan Paper Ballot Systems require voters to mark paper ballots, which are subsequently tabulated by scanning devices (“scanners” ...
  77. [77]
    Table 1 : Average Presidential Residual Votes by Voting System
    Performance in all Counties Table 1 presents residual votes by voting system type for the presidential election of 2000. The first column presents the average ...
  78. [78]
    [PDF] Determining the Causes of AccuVote Optical Scan Voting Terminal ...
    The AccuVote optical scanners (AV-OS) manufactured by ES&S account for over 20% of all OS systems. OS systems typically use removable media (cards) to provide ...
  79. [79]
    Optical scanning machines are susceptible to miscounting U.S. voter ...
    Nov 1, 2020 · According to a Pew Research Center analysis, nearly half of registered U.S. voters live in jurisdictions that use optical scan machines as ...Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
  80. [80]
    Ballot marking machine - Minnesota Secretary Of State
    Ballot marking machines give you privacy and independence if you cannot, or choose not, to vote using a pen.
  81. [81]
    Why Voters Should Mark Ballots by Hand - Verified Voting
    Dec 4, 2018 · Author: Andrew Appel. Because voting machines contain computers that can be hacked to make them cheat, “Elections should be conducted with ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  82. [82]
    Princeton election expert warned legislators about a commonly used ...
    Mar 21, 2024 · The continued use of computers to mark ballots on behalf of voters, as many counties do, is a “disaster waiting to happen,” Princeton University computer ...
  83. [83]
    Voting Machines: Overview | Research Starters - EBSCO
    Voting machines are electronic devices used in various election processes across the United States, with their usage increasing significantly in the early 2000 ...Missing: rate | Show results with:rate
  84. [84]
    [PDF] Does Voting Technology Affect Election Outcomes? Touch-screen ...
    Feb 6, 2006 · In this paper we use county-level data on voting technologies in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections to test whether voting technology ...<|separator|>
  85. [85]
    Overview of Software Security Issues in Direct-Recording Electronic ...
    Aug 12, 2018 · PDF | This paper surveys the literature on software security in direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting machines. A history of DRE voting ...Missing: definition empirical
  86. [86]
    Electronic voting machines versus traditional methods
    The series of studies reported here compares usability data from a DRE with those from more traditional voting technologies (paper ballots, punch cards, and ...
  87. [87]
    [PDF] DEF CON 2 7 Voting Machine Hacking Village
    Aug 5, 2019 · there will still be time to dramatically improve our election security by 2020. The House has already passed a bill to ensure every voter can ...Missing: rates | Show results with:rates
  88. [88]
    How to Hack an Election in 7 Minutes - POLITICO Magazine
    Aug 5, 2016 · When Princeton professor Andrew Appel decided to hack into a voting machine, he didn't try to mimic the Russian attackers who hacked into ...
  89. [89]
    NIST Clarifies Import of Voting Machine Study - GovTech
    Jul 27, 2010 · "Lack of an independent audit capability in DRE voting systems is one of the main reasons behind continued questions about voting system ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  90. [90]
    [PDF] Policy on Direct Recording Electronic Voting Machines and Ballot ...
    Nov 21, 2019 · Verification through voter-marked paper ballots: For the foreseeable future, elections should use durable paper ballots, which voters mark by ...
  91. [91]
    Voting Machines at Risk in 2022 | Brennan Center for Justice
    Mar 1, 2022 · A joint analysis from the Brennan Center and Verified Voting finds that replacing aging voting equipment will cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
  92. [92]
    Voting Machines at Risk in 2022, a joint analysis from the Brennan ...
    Mar 1, 2022 · A joint analysis from the Brennan Center and Verified Voting finds replacing aging voting equipment will cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
  93. [93]
    Voting Equipment - Verified Voting
    How we vote in the United States is surprisingly complex. Election security experts agree that the most resilient voting systems use paper ballots (marked by ...
  94. [94]
    West Virginia Becomes First State to Test Mobile Voting by ...
    Should online voting ever reach the mainstream, many believe it would boost turnout and make elections more representative. Voatz' technology works by recording ...
  95. [95]
    Going from bad to worse: from Internet voting to blockchain voting
    Voters are understandably concerned about election security. News reports of possible election interference by foreign powers, of unauthorized voting, ...
  96. [96]
    The Myth of “Secure” Blockchain Voting | U.S. Vote Foundation
    In this short paper, David Jefferson explains why blockchain cannot deliver the security guarantees required for safe online elections.
  97. [97]
    Going from bad to worse: from Internet voting to blockchain voting
    Abstract. Voters are understandably concerned about election security. News reports of possible election interference by foreign powers, of unauthorized vo.<|separator|>
  98. [98]
    Blockchain for Electronic Voting System—Review and Open ...
    It eliminates the need to print ballot papers or open polling stations—voters can vote from wherever there is an Internet connection. Despite these benefits, ...
  99. [99]
    Measuring the Impact of Voting Technology on Residual Vote Rates
    Abstract. In the wake of the 2000 election, the importance of knowing the impact of voting equipment on the number of uncounted ballots became evident. Using ...
  100. [100]
    https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/96548/vtp_wp11.pdf?sequence=1
  101. [101]
    https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/EAC%20Decision%20on%20RFI%202023-02%20Minimum%20Ballot%20Positions.pdf
  102. [102]
    [PDF] Comparing the Auditability of Optical Scan, Voter Verified Paper ...
    using either Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting systems equipped with Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail. (VVPAT) modules or optical scan ballot systems ...
  103. [103]
    Front Matter | Securing the Vote: Protecting American Democracy
    Read chapter Front Matter: During the 2016 presidential election, America's election infrastructure was targeted by actors sponsored by the Russian govern.
  104. [104]
    https://news3lv.com/news/local/nye-county-clerk-tempers-hand-count-expectations-calls-it-a-test
  105. [105]
    https://doi.org/10.1089/elj.2017.0440
  106. [106]
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00321.x
  107. [107]
    [PDF] Election Auditing: Best Practices and New Areas for Research
    The best-known type of election audit is the post-elec- tion tabulation audit that confirms the accuracy of electoral contests by ensuring that the votes were.
  108. [108]
    [PDF] A Gentle Introduction to Risk-limiting Audits - Berkeley Statistics
    Mar 16, 2012 · They involve manually examining portions of an audit trail of (generally paper) records that voters had the opportunity to verify recorded their ...
  109. [109]
    [PDF] A Gentle Introduction to Risk-Limiting Audits
    Risk-limiting audits provide statistical assurance that election outcomes are correct by manually examining portions of the audit trail—paper ballots or voter- ...Missing: timeline | Show results with:timeline
  110. [110]
    Risk-Limiting Audits: Home
    RiskLimitingAudits.org is maintained by a community of RLA experts. Our goal is to demystify the RLA and connect you to the experts and tools you need to run ...Missing: timeline | Show results with:timeline
  111. [111]
    [PDF] The State of Risk-Limiting Audit Implementation - NASS.org
    In 2017, Colorado became the first state to implement risk-limiting audits (RLAs), a type of post-election tabulation audit. While RLAs are considered the ...Missing: US | Show results with:US
  112. [112]
    Risk-Limiting Audits - California Secretary of State - CA.gov
    A risk-limiting audit is a method of ensuring that election results match voter selections reflected on paper ballots.
  113. [113]
    Georgia hand tally of votes is complete, affirms Biden lead | AP News
    A hand tally of ballots cast in Georgia for the presidential race has been completed, and it affirms Democrat Joe Biden's ...
  114. [114]
    Georgia's Recount Confirms Biden's Lead; AP Declares Him State's ...
    Nov 19, 2020 · The full hand recount of the state's 5 million presidential votes resulted in a narrowing of Biden's lead over President Trump in Georgia.
  115. [115]
    2020 General Election Risk-Limiting Audit | Georgia Secretary of State
    This is because some voters received two-page ballots, and the second page was considered a blank ballot since it did not have the presidential contest. Audit ...
  116. [116]
    [PDF] The Georgia Risk-Limiting Audit/Hand Tally - The Carter Center
    Mar 31, 2021 · Following the November 2020 election, Georgia conducted a risk-limiting audit (RLA) of the presidential race. This audit constituted the largest ...<|separator|>
  117. [117]
    Did an 'audit' of Maricopa County's 2020 election results find that ...
    Jul 1, 2024 · No. An “audit” of 2020 election results by Arizona's Republican-led Senate in 2021 did not find that fraudulent mail-in ballots were ...<|separator|>
  118. [118]
    [PDF] Correcting the record - Maricopa County Elections
    Sep 24, 2021 · This includes faulty conclusions about voters who moved, early voting files, certified results, voter registration information, the County's ...
  119. [119]
    Maricopa County rebuts 'audit' findings, GOP's bogus election claims
    Jan 5, 2022 · Nearly every claim that Senate President Karen Fann's so-called audit team made about the 2020 general election was either inaccurate, misleading or patently ...
  120. [120]
    Arizona AG releases 2020 "audit" findings that predecessor withheld
    Feb 22, 2023 · ... audit of the 2020 election in Maricopa County commissioned by the state Senate were unfounded; but former Republican AG Mark Brnovich ...
  121. [121]
    Wisconsin audit finds elections are 'safe and secure' | AP News
    Oct 22, 2021 · A highly anticipated nonpartisan audit of the 2020 presidential election in Wisconsin released Friday did not identify any widespread fraud in the battleground ...
  122. [122]
    Auditors find 2020 election was secure while recommending new ...
    Oct 25, 2021 · The Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau released a report Friday that found the 2020 election was conducted safely and securely.
  123. [123]
    Post-election audit report confirms accuracy and integrity of ...
    Apr 22, 2021 · The Michigan Bureau of Elections released its report today on the 250 post-election audits conducted across the state, affirming the ...
  124. [124]
    Risk-Limiting Audits - Verified Voting
    A risk-limiting audit (RLA) checks a random sample of voter-verifiable paper ballots, giving strong evidence to support the reported election results.
  125. [125]
    Bush v. Gore | Summary, Decision, Significance, & Facts - Britannica
    Oct 2, 2025 · Bush v. Gore, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a Florida Supreme Court's recount order of the state's presidential ...
  126. [126]
    Bush v. Gore | 531 U.S. 98 (2000) - Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
    Florida did not need to complete a recount in the 2000 presidential election because it could not be accomplished in a constitutionally valid way.Missing: key | Show results with:key<|separator|>
  127. [127]
    Chads, Scanners And Votes - CBS News
    Nov 12, 2001 · A vote-by-vote review of untallied ballots in the 2000 Florida presidential election indicates George W. Bush would have narrowly prevailed ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  128. [128]
    EXAMINING THE VOTE: THE OVERVIEW; Study of Disputed Florida ...
    Nov 12, 2001 · A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United ...
  129. [129]
    Bush v. Gore | Oyez
    Dec 11, 2000 · A case in which the Court found that the Florida government violated the Equal Protection Clause in ordering a partial recount of the 2000 ...
  130. [130]
    Media Recount: Bush Won the 2000 Election | PBS News
    Apr 3, 2001 · Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed ...
  131. [131]
    - EXAMINING IRREGULARITIES IN THE 2020 ELECTION
    [Senate Hearing 116-405] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 116-405 EXAMINING IRREGULARITIES IN THE 2020 ELECTION ...
  132. [132]
    Why Does It Take So Long to Count Mail Ballots in Key States ...
    Nov 7, 2022 · The slow pace of counting mail ballots in states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin was a key source of election disinformation in 2020.
  133. [133]
    No evidence for systematic voter fraud: A guide to statistical claims ...
    After the 2020 US presidential election Donald Trump refused to concede, alleging widespread and unparalleled voter fraud.
  134. [134]
    US Dominion, Inc. v. Fox News Network, LLC
    ... Dominion Voting Systems manipulated votes and promoted voter fraud to falsify election results. In March 2021, Dominion filed a defamation lawsuit against ...<|separator|>
  135. [135]
    Results of Lawsuits Regarding the 2020 Elections
    The various claims of evidence alleging a stolen 2020 election have been exhaustively investigated and litigated. Judges heard claims of illegal voting and ...
  136. [136]
    Trump's judicial campaign to upend the 2020 election: A failure, but ...
    Nov 30, 2021 · When President Donald Trump tried to enlist the courts in his campaign to overturn the results of the election, state and federal judges applied ...
  137. [137]
    Federal judge dismisses Trump's attempt to disenfranchise seven ...
    A federal district court judge today dismissed a lawsuit brought by President Trump's campaign for reelection against Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy ...
  138. [138]
    Courts have dismissed multiple lawsuits of alleged electoral fraud ...
    Feb 15, 2021 · State and federal judges dismissed more than 50 lawsuits presented by then President Donald Trump and his allies challenging the election or its outcome.
  139. [139]
    Georgia to conduct full by-hand count of presidential race ballots ...
    Nov 11, 2020 · Georgia's secretary of state announced Wednesday that the state will conduct an audit of the 2020 presidential race, recounting by hand the millions of ballots ...
  140. [140]
    State Election Board Clears Fulton County “Ballot Suitcase ...
    Jun 20, 2023 · ... investigation into alleged malfeasance during the 2020 election at the State Farm Arena in Atlanta. Over the course of the investigation, it ...
  141. [141]
    Georgia closes book on 'suitcases full of ballots' 2020 election case
    Jun 20, 2023 · Georgia officials said Tuesday the State Election Board closed the election, finding no evidence of conspiracy.
  142. [142]
    Trump friendly Cyber Ninjas audit of Arizona votes still shows Biden ...
    Sep 24, 2021 · A draft report of the much-criticized, Republican-backed review of 2020 election results in Arizona's largest county has in fact confirmed ...
  143. [143]
    BPC Elections and Election Officials: Cyber Ninjas' Report Shows ...
    Sep 24, 2021 · The Bipartisan Policy Center's Elections Project and election officials condemn the unnecessary, inaccurate review of the Maricopa County 2020 election results ...<|separator|>
  144. [144]
    Fact-Checking PA-related Election Claims
    Voters who request a mail ballot and do not complete it will be required to vote provisionally if they report to their polling place on Election Day unless they ...
  145. [145]
    Expert report affirms accuracy of Antrim County presidential election ...
    Mar 26, 2021 · A report by an elections technology security expert who performed an analysis of the voting equipment used in Antrim County again affirmed ...
  146. [146]
    Michigan: Failure updating software caused Antrim County vote glitch
    Nov 6, 2020 · A failure to properly update software was the reason for a computer glitch that caused massive errors in unofficial election results reported from Antrim ...
  147. [147]
    Detecting Anomalies in the 2020 US Presidential Election Votes with ...
    Dec 11, 2020 · Most prominent distribution violations are observed with Republican vote counts in blue states, all vote counts in states won by the Democratic ...
  148. [148]
    Deviation from Benford's Law does not prove election fraud - Reuters
    Nov 15, 2020 · Social media users have been sharing posts that say a mathematical rule called Benford's Law provides clear proof of fraud in the U.S. ...
  149. [149]
    Vote Recounts and Election Contests in Battleground States - MIT
    Because the 2020 presidential election results in several states were quite close, stakeholders took advantage of various state laws and procedures to ...Missing: evidence | Show results with:evidence
  150. [150]
    Can Electronic Voting Systems Be Made More Secure? - Tufts Now
    Nov 4, 2022 · A Tufts cybersecurity expert says one of the best ways to secure electronic voting systems is to use equipment that creates a paper record ...
  151. [151]
    Vulnerabilities Affecting Dominion Voting Systems ImageCast X - CISA
    Jun 3, 2022 · This advisory identifies vulnerabilities affecting versions of the Dominion Voting Systems Democracy Suite ImageCast X, which is an in-person voting system.
  152. [152]
    How Safe Are Voting Machines? DOD-Funded Lab IDs Vulnerabilities
    May 22, 2024 · A team of students and researchers from Towson University and the University of Maryland is trying to chart every conceivable way of breaching the voting ...
  153. [153]
    [PDF] DEFCON 25 Voting Machine Hacking Village
    If Russia can attack our election, so can others: Iran, North Korea, ISIS, or even criminal or extremist groups. Time is short: our 2018 and 2020 elections are ...
  154. [154]
    Kids at hacking conference show how easily US elections could be ...
    Aug 22, 2018 · Changing recorded votes would be difficult for bad actors. But at Def Con in Las Vegas, children had no trouble finding another point of entry.
  155. [155]
    The nation's best hackers found vulnerabilities in voting machines
    Aug 12, 2024 · A hack that would disrupt the election is unlikely, but experts are worried that any vulnerabilities could provide fodder for those wishing ...<|separator|>
  156. [156]
    Expert shows how to tamper with Georgia voting machine in security ...
    Jan 22, 2024 · ... voting machine could be hacked during a 2018 hearing. ... Alex Halderman demonstrates how to hack Georgia's previous voting equipment.
  157. [157]
    The science behind election security
    Oct 29, 2024 · Alex Halderman has spent the past decade making the technology behind American voting ... hacked to steal votes. As a result, Georgia replaced its ...
  158. [158]
    [PDF] Security Analysis of Georgia's ImageCast X Ballot Marking Devices ...
    Dominion Voting Systems Corp., via counsel Susman Godfrey, L.L.P., retained MITRE's. National Election Security Lab (NESL) to provide an independent expert ...
  159. [159]
    Hacking blind spot: States struggle to vet coders of election software
    Sep 1, 2024 · Four years later, Iranian hackers penetrated inside an unnamed state's database, then used data stolen during the hack to mount a targeted voter ...
  160. [160]
    Four election vulnerabilities uncovered by a Michigan Engineer
    Oct 23, 2024 · ... Voting Systems developed a patch for several of the software vulnerabilities he discovered. ... voting machines are to hacking, and how ...
  161. [161]
    Text - H.R.3295 - 107th Congress (2001-2002): Help America Vote Act of 2002
    ### Summary of H.R.3295 - Help America Vote Act (Voting System Standards, Provisional Voting, Paper Records/Audits)
  162. [162]
    [PDF] Guidance Concerning Federal Statutes Affecting Methods of Voting
    This includes provisions of federal law that apply to methods of casting a ballot. Since the 2020 election, some States have permanently adopted the ...<|separator|>
  163. [163]
    Voluntary Voting System Guidelines
    Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) are a set of specifications and requirements against which voting systems can be tested to determine if they meet ...
  164. [164]
    https://www.eac.gov/news/2021/02/10/us-election-assistance-commission-adopts-new-voluntary-voting-system-guidelines-20
  165. [165]
    S.4573 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Electoral Count Reform and ...
    Summary of S.4573 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022.
  166. [166]
    How do voting laws differ by state? - USAFacts
    For many of us, “voting” conjures an image of people going to a ballot box on Election Day, but the way voters submit ballots varies from state to state.
  167. [167]
    How the ballot-counting rules differ across the key battleground states
    Nov 1, 2024 · Each state has their own rules about how and when election officials can process absentee and provisional ballots, which can have a big ...
  168. [168]
    When Absentee/Mail Ballot Processing and Counting Can Begin
    Absentee/mail ballots must be processed before they can be counted, and in many states, processing can begin before ballots are allowed to be counted.
  169. [169]
    Report Provisional Ballots - National Conference of State Legislatures
    They provide a fail-safe mechanism for voters who arrive at the polls on Election Day and whose eligibility to vote is uncertain. This webpage provides a ...
  170. [170]
    How Voting Laws Have Changed in Battleground States Since 2020
    Aug 15, 2024 · In the years since the 2020 election, many states have aggressively attempted to restrict voting access. Limiting absentee voting has been the ...
  171. [171]
    [PDF] 21 SB 202/AP S. B. 202 - 1 - Senate Bill 202 By
    BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA: 65. SECTION 1. 66. This Act shall be known and may be cited as the "Election Integrity Act of 2021." 67. Page ...
  172. [172]
    Senate Bill 90 (2021) - The Florida Senate
    Prohibiting certain persons from settling certain actions, consenting to conditions, or agreeing to certain orders in certain circumstances.
  173. [173]
    Governor Ron DeSantis Signs Bill to Safeguard the Sanctity of ...
    May 6, 2021 · Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law Senate Bill 90, Florida's new election integrity bill, strengthening voter identification, prohibiting the mass mailing ...
  174. [174]
    [PDF] Gauging the Effects of SB 202 on Voting in Georgia - MIT Election Lab
    Since becoming law,. SB 202 remains controversial among many in the state who view the measure as potentially acting to suppress voter turnout. This research ...
  175. [175]
    The State of State Election Policy in 2024
    Sep 26, 2024 · The 2020 presidential election brought election administration to the center of the national political debate. The last four years have seen ...
  176. [176]
    International Electoral Standards: Guidelines for reviewing the legal ...
    What constitutes a fair electoral system and a fair election? What are the guiding principles for reviewing electoral legislation?
  177. [177]
    How elections work around the world - Pew Research Center
    Oct 30, 2020 · From voter registration to mail-in ballots, how do countries around the world run their elections? · More than half of all countries and ...
  178. [178]
    Counting the votes - Australian Electoral Commission
    The federal election counting process delivers integrity to the results, concentrating on accuracy in a highly transparent manner.The Senate counting process · House of Representatives count
  179. [179]
    Judgment of 3 March 2009 - Bundesverfassungsgericht
    Mar 3, 2009 · 2325) can be found in § 35 of the Federal Electoral Act. The Ordinance on the Deployment of Voting Machines in Elections to the German Bundestag ...
  180. [180]
    “The High Mass of Democracy” —Why Germany Remains Aloof to ...
    So far Germany remains aloof to the idea of introducing electronic voting as another form of convenience voting to its political elections.
  181. [181]
    Safeguards for Counting Votes and Reporting on Results
    Apr 11, 2025 · The federal electoral process has many safeguards, including measures to securely count votes and report the results.
  182. [182]
    Internet voting in Estonia 2005–2019: Evidence from eleven elections
    Over the course of the past 15 years, Estonian voters have cast i-votes in four national and three European Parliament elections, in addition to four nation- ...
  183. [183]
    Security Analysis of the Estonian Internet Voting System
    In this paper, we analyze the security of the Estonian I-voting system based on a combination of in-person election observation, code review, and adversarial ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  184. [184]
    The Front Lines of Digital Democracy – Securing i-Voting in Estonia
    Jul 5, 2023 · Yet despite significant strides in refining and expanding its internet voting system, even making it a cornerstone of their electoral process, ...
  185. [185]
    [PDF] OPINION ON THE REGULATION OF INTERNET VOTING ESTONIA
    Jun 17, 2025 · Arvo Aller, submitted a request to the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and. Human Rights (ODIHR) to review the legislative framework ...
  186. [186]
    5 Ensuring the Integrity of Elections | Securing the Vote
    altering or destroying evidence necessary to audit and verify the correct reporting of election results. There are many ways to prevent the casting of votes.
  187. [187]
    [PDF] Risk-Limiting Post-Election Audits - Berkeley Statistics
    Stark, University of California, Berkeley. Page 2. The Risk-Limiting Audits Working Group is a self-organized group of election officials, researchers, and ...
  188. [188]
    [PDF] Risk-Limiting Audit – Final Report
    Post-Election Audit Initiative – Grant No. EAC110150E. Page 2. Table of Contents. History of Post-Election Audits in Colorado .
  189. [189]
    [PDF] Evidence-Based Elections - Berkeley Statistics
    Jan 9, 2012 · This can be accomplished with a combination of software-independent voting systems, compliance audits, and risk-limiting audits. Together, these ...
  190. [190]
    [PDF] US Election Assistance Commission Voting System Security Measures
    The security of voting systems is essential to a trustworthy election. Every state and local jurisdiction utilizes common-sense procedures.
  191. [191]
    Voting explainer: Why experts oppose hand-counting ballots - NPR
    which experts say would bring a level of chaos to elections ...
  192. [192]
    Hand-Counting Votes: A Proven Bad Idea | Brennan Center for Justice
    Nov 23, 2022 · Efforts to replace modern voting machines with hand-counting are based on false conspiracy theories. But the machines do still need to be protected and kept up ...
  193. [193]
    [PDF] Observations on Voting Equipment Use and Replacement
    Apr 11, 2018 · Local election jurisdictions primarily used optical scan and direct recording electronic (DRE), also known as touch screen, equipment during ...
  194. [194]
    How Ballot Tabulators Improve Elections | Bipartisan Policy Center
    Apr 25, 2022 · Unfounded concerns about the integrity of the 2020 election have spiraled into a crisis of confidence in our nation's core election ...
  195. [195]
    9 Vote Counter Technologies Transforming Election Accuracy - Votem
    The central node represents the Votem CastIron platform, while the branches show its main features. Optical Scan Voting Systems: Enhancing Accuracy in Vote ...Missing: emerging tabulation
  196. [196]
    Use of Artificial Intelligence applied to the electoral count
    A system of character recognition and interpretation using AI is a minimally invasive method for the voter, since he/she can continue voting on paper and does ...
  197. [197]
    Safeguards for Using Artificial Intelligence in Election Administration
    Dec 12, 2023 · In this resource, we examine how AI is already being used in election offices and how that use could evolve as the technology advances and becomes more widely ...Missing: evidence- | Show results with:evidence-
  198. [198]
    Blockchain-Based E-Voting Mechanisms: A Survey and a Proposal
    Sep 26, 2024 · In this paper, we compose a comparative analysis of blockchain-based electronic voting (e-voting) systems using blockchain technology, cryptographic techniques ...
  199. [199]
    Demonstration of new automated counting machines for 2025 polls
    Jun 18, 2024 · Headstart: Commission on Elections Chairman George Garcia joins Karen Davila in the studio for a live demonstration of the new automated ...
  200. [200]
    Pennsylvania county's new high-tech system to count votes faster
    Nov 2, 2024 · On election day, all eyes will be on battleground Pennsylvania. And this time around, one key county has a new high-tech system to count ...Missing: pilots | Show results with:pilots<|separator|>
  201. [201]
    Election Technology - U.S. Election Assistance Commission
    The EAC's Election Technology Division encompasses the Voting System Testing & Certification Program (T&C), Election Supporting Technology Evaluation Program ( ...
  202. [202]
    Pilot Implementation Study of Risk-Limiting Audit Methods in the ...
    Sep 3, 2019 · Now, state law requires Rhode Island election officials to conduct risk-limiting audits, the “gold standard” of post-election audits, beginning ...
  203. [203]
    [PDF] Securing the Vote: Protecting American Democracy
    The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of. Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institu- tion to ...
  204. [204]
    State Measures to Improve Election Security and Voter Confidence
    Nov 2, 2023 · State officials and lawmakers across the US have proposed and passed laws to increase the confidence of voters in election integrity.
  205. [205]
    Risk-Limiting Audit (RLA) FAQs - Colorado Secretary of State
    A risk-limiting audit is a post-election audit that gives a statistical level of confidence that the outcome of an election is correct.