Quote:
Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth
Human counting down get it wrong. When I was working at the count where Ed Balls lost his seat the first count was very close, but the gap actually widened after a recount. There was even talk of having a second recount.
And yes there were plenty of people observing the punting process.
|
Any human-based count won’t be ever 100% accurate, simply because humans are failable. But this doesn’t generally matter.
If candidate A wins by, say 5000 votes, it is inconceivable that 5001 votes were wrongly counted, maybe cadndiate A won by 4,800 votes - 100 votes were miscounted, but it didn't change the outcome.
Unless the first count gives the difference between two candidates within the margin of error which is expected. Then, yes there does need to be a recount with (maybe) more strenuous checking - and yes sometimes it will actually ‘help’ the winning candidate.