Skip to content

Friday, Oct. 14, 2022

Is hand-counting ballots less accurate and slower than scanning them?


yes

Studies have found that machine scanners are more accurate than hand counts. Local election officials also say hand-counting ballots would require more time and resources.

Researchers in a 2018 study comparing two statewide recounts in Wisconsin found that, “Scanning paper ballots produces a more accurate election night count than hand-counting ballots."

An older study looking at New Hampshire elections between 1946 and 2002 found a 0.5% discrepancy between initial counts and recounts for scanned ballots, but a 0.9% difference for hand-counted ballots.

"Republicans are arguing that humans are more likely than machines to get the count right," wrote Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Charles Stewart III, who runs the MIT Election Data and Science Lab. "Evidence however, suggests the opposite: Computers — which ballot scanners rely on — are very good at tedious, repetitive tasks. Humans are bad at them. And counting votes is tedious and repetitive."

See a full discussion of this at Wisconsin Watch

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

About fact briefs

Fact briefs are bite-sized, well-sourced explanations that offer clear "yes" or "no" answers to questions, confusions, and unsupported claims circulating online. They rely on publicly available data and documents, often from the original source. Fact briefs are written and published by Gigafact contributor publications.

See all fact briefs

Wisconsin Watch, the news arm of the nonpartisan, nonprofit Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, increases the quality and quantity of investigative reporting in Wisconsin, while training current and future investigative journalists. Its work fosters an informed citizenry and strengthens democracy.

Learn More

Be a Friend of facts

Help us fund more great fact briefs like this one.