In democracy, machines count for something

Letting machines take over our elections means that people who protest the results will look less crazy and more like John Connor.
Letting machines take over our elections means that people who protest the results will look less crazy and more like John Connor.

Good news, everyone, about the recount in Wisconsin! … No, not that. He probably still won. But! The recount should prove that, when (not “if”) the machines take over, they’re even better at democracy than we are. So, the singularity shouldn’t be a totalitarian dictatorship!

For all the worries about human error in vote counting and machines screwing up, four election experts believe that the Wisconsin recount will prove two things: (1) we’re better at counting votes than we think, and (2) machines are better than us at it and, therefore democracy.

Previous recounts show a 0.28 percent discrepancy in hand-counted votes, while computer-counted votes only had a 0.17 percent discrepancy. And even when the machines screw up, it’s mostly when a human factor interrupts the computer process, like a human logging computer counts incorrectly on a pen and ink form.

So, if we really want a more representative government, then perhaps it’s time to throw out the factor that keeps (minutely) screwing it up: humans.

Published by

Rick Snee

Through his writing for SeriouslyGuys, Rick Snee has alternately been accused of being: a liberal, a conservative, three different spellings of "moron," some old grump, a millennial know-nothing and -- on one occasion -- a grave insult to a minor deity in some obscure pantheon (you probably haven't heard of it). Really, he's just one of The Guys, y'know?