I work in a grocery store and...

[lame54]

after the office person hand counts a deposit - they call up somebody to re-count(by hand) the amount before it is deposited in the safe
every night every time no exceptions
and yes there are errors that are caught
If it is good enough for a business it should be good enough for a democracy
http://youtube.com/watch?v=MxF4y9tSG08

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. That's right

ask any CPA if being off by a certain percentage, no matter how small, is acceptable, especially to the IRS!

[Cleita]

2. Exactly and this is how businesses operate.

The cash registers are only something to balance against. The counts are always by hand of cash and receipts and compared to the tapes. This is how the electronic voting machines should work, with hand counts of the paper sources compared to the totals of the machine. No one from the small corner store up to the biggest banks do any less because this is known as double entry bookkeeping and it's done every night at closing universely. To do single entry bookkeeping in not verifying the totals invites stealing. All businesses know this. We should demand no less for our votes.

[lame54]

3. shameless self-kick

[sabbat hunter]

4. but even with two people counting

there are still sometimes errors. Having worked in a bank I have seen this first hand. you will never get 100% accuracy, either by hand count or machine count.

Another example is when they do inventory. They do not expect 100% accuracy but about 99%. They know 100% is impossible.

[Johonny]

6. there is such a thing as counting error

You can actually calculate the expected counting error.

[sabbat hunter]

7. but that still

does not give you 100% accuracy.

[Johonny]

9. I think my point is

100 % accuracy in counting of large systems is generally impossible. Which is why it's important to calculate the counting error.

[sabbat hunter]

10. *sigh*

MY point is that with calculating for a counting error you STILL do not get 100% accuracy. Why? because that calculation is a calculated estimate.

So even WITH calculating for errors you STILL do NOT get 100% accuracy.

[Johonny]

11. 100% accuracy

It’s impossible. You will never achieve 100 % accuracy. You want to know the counting error to know what discrepancy is beyond your limit to detect. In the case of voting, if 100 % percent accuracy is impossible, it seems really stupid to allow a candidate to win an election with a vote total within the uncertainty (see Florida 2000).

[IdesOfOctober]

5. And you serve up such tasty produce! K+R

[IdesOfOctober]

8. Here I sit, broken-hearted, went to rec, and brainfarted.

But it did make me realize I'd forgot to give you some love in the open appreciation thread, so all is not lost.

Ides

[BeFree]

12. Well, sure

If that is what you really want -- accuracy.

But what this country wants is to feel good and that's why we have unsupported vote totals. That way we can all feel good that bushco is our leader. Elected fair and square, he was, and if you question that, well, you ain't gonna make people feel good... you're gonna make them uneasy. Can't have people feeling uneasy.

More Diebold, cuz its just easier that way.