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.

We call pandas#@t on those numbers

It’s been 10 years, and you all know what that means: it’s time for another panda census in China. Just like here in the U.S., certain elements are afraid to comply with the once-a-decade count, even if an undercount could mean a drop in state support for panda services.

So, what is the Chinese government to do? Does a bear crap in the woods? Unfortunately for paranoid pandas, yes, they do. And China’s gonna count your turds.

In Other News: Anti-census crusader Michelle Bachmann wants you to know that she is not a flake, just a serial killer.