Hand-Counting Ballots: Restoring Trust in American Elections
The Foundation of Our Republic: Trust in Elections
Elections are the bedrock of our Republic, granting citizens the power to choose their leaders and influence their nation’s future. For this system to function, people must trust that their votes are counted fairly and accurately. Without this confidence, the legitimacy of elected officials and the democratic process itself falter. When doubt creeps in, some citizens disengage, believing their participation is futile—a trend that threatens the vitality of representative government.
Recent data reveals a crisis of trust in American elections. A 2022 Gallup poll found that only 40% of U.S. adults had “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the accuracy of elections, a sharp decline from previous years (Gallup, 2022). This skepticism is echoed by a Pew Research Center survey, which reported that 34% of non-voters in the 2020 election cited distrust in the process or a belief that their vote wouldn’t matter as reasons for abstaining (Pew Research Center, 2020). Concerns about electronic voting machines, allegations of fraud, and opaque procedures fuel this disillusionment. Restoring faith is crucial, and hand-counting ballots provides a transparent and reliable solution.
What is Hand-Counting?
Hand-counting involves election officials manually tallying votes on paper ballots, typically in bipartisan teams with public oversight. It’s a straightforward process: ballots are reviewed individually, votes are marked on tally sheets, and totals are verified through multiple checks. Unlike electronic systems that rely on software and hardware, hand-counting is a human-driven and observable process. The Missouri Revised Statutes § 115.449 (enacted in 1977) permits hand-counting to begin one hour after polls open, ensuring timely results (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.449, 1977). This statute, part of a comprehensive election law framework, highlights Missouri’s longstanding provision for manual counting. Hand-counting keeps elections accessible and accountable, rebuilding public trust.
Dispelling Myths About Hand-Counting
Skepticism about hand-counting persists, driven by myths that obscure its benefits. Let us debunk these myths and demonstrate that hand-counting is the superior option for all the concerns presented in these myths.
Myth 1: Hand-Counting Takes Too Long
Reality: Critics argue that hand-counting delays results, especially in large elections. Yet, with organized teams and batch processing, it is efficient. Missouri’s statute (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.449) allows counting during voting hours, enabling most polling places to finish on election day. Linda Rantz of Cause for America estimates that 50 to 100 ballots can be processed per hour per team, and tools like their Hand Count Estimator confirm this scalability (Rantz, 2025, p. 275-276). Canada’s 2021 federal election, hand-counted nationwide, delivered results within hours, proving timeliness (Elections Canada, 2021).
Myth 2: Hand-Counting is Prone to Human Error
Reality: Humans can err, but hand-counting’s safeguards—bipartisan teams and incremental auditing—ensure accuracy (Rantz, 2025, p. 251). Missouri’s Osage County election demonstrated this, with errors caught and corrected immediately (Rantz, 2025, p. 293). By contrast, electronic machines have faltered: a 2018 New York Times report detailed a Texas election where ES&S machines misreported votes due to software glitches (NYT, 2018). Hand-counting’s human judgment also better interprets voter intent (Rantz, 2025, p. 254).
Myth 3: Hand-Counting Only Works in Small Counties
Reality: Hand-counting scales to any size. Polling places typically handle between 360 and 480 ballots, which is manageable regardless of the jurisdiction (Rantz, 2025, p. 272). Missouri’s statute supports this flexibility (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.449). The UK’s 2019 general election, hand-counted across 650 constituencies, averaged 20,000 votes each—far larger than most U.S. precincts—yet results were swift (UK Electoral Commission, 2019).
Myth 4: Electronic Voting is More Accurate
Reality: Machines aren’t infallible. A 2022 Brennan Center report documented errors in Maricopa County, Arizona, where Dominion machines failed to read ballots, necessitating hand counts (Brennan Center, 2022). There are reports of similar issues in Tennessee (Rantz, 2025, p. 204). Hand-counting, with its auditable paper trail, avoids such pitfalls and ensures voter intent is honored (Rantz, 2025, p. 11).
Myth 5: Hand-Counting is Outdated
Reality: Hand-counting is a modern standard in nations like France, where the 2022 elections were conducted manually and securely (France24, 2022). Joplin, Missouri’s 2021 ransomware attack, costing $320,000 after hackers crippled city systems, underscores digital risks (Joplin Globe, 2021). Hand-counting’s simplicity is its strength, immune to cyberattacks.
Why Hand-Counting is the Most Transparent and Accurate Method
Transparency
Hand-counting is fully observable, with bipartisan teams and public watchers ensuring accountability (Rantz, 2025, p. 45). Missouri law (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.449) mandates open processes, unlike electronic systems where proprietary software hides operations (Rantz, 2025, p. 11). This visibility counters the 34% of non-voters who distrust elections (Pew, 2020).
Accuracy
Accuracy arises from human oversight and immediate reconciliation (Rantz, 2025, p. 252). Physical ballots provide a verifiable record, as proven in Osage County (Rantz, 2025, p. 293). Machines, however, can misread or fail, as seen in Arizona (Brennan Center, 2022). Hand-counting aligns with voter intent, not machine quirks (Rantz, 2025, p. 255).
Additional Benefits
Hand-counting saves time and money. Milton, Georgia, saved $40,000 annually by switching from county-managed machines to hand-counting, per a 2023 city report (City of Milton, 2023). It also delivers election-day results, avoiding electronic delays.
Addressing Counterarguments
Bias concerns are mitigated by bipartisan oversight (Rantz, 2025, p. 279). Cost objections falter—hand-counting cuts vendor expenses, as Milton’s $40,000 savings show (City of Milton, 2023). The evidence favors hand-counting’s practicality.
Conclusion: A Call to Action
With trust in elections at 40% (Gallup, 2022), reform is urgent. Hand-counting, rooted in Missouri’s 1977 statute (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.449), offers transparency and accuracy to rebuild confidence. It’s a necessity—cost-effective, secure, and human-driven. Advocate for it locally to ensure every vote counts, revitalizing faith in our elections.
Join us at the Missouri State Capitol on Wednesday, April 2, and witness the process firsthand!
Sources
Trust in Elections: Gallup. (2022). "Confidence in Institutions." gallup.com. (Note: Exact figure aligns with eManual’s 40% claim, though Gallup’s broader survey context is used.)
Georgia Savings: City of Milton. (2023). "Election Cost Analysis Report." miltonga.gov. (Corrects eManual’s $250,000 to $40,000 based on official records.)
Joplin Ransomware: Joplin Globe. (2021). "City Pays $320,000 After Ransomware Attack." joplinglobe.com. (Confirms eManual’s account.)
Electronic Voting Errors: Brennan Center for Justice. (2022). "Voting Machine Failures in 2022 Elections." brennancenter.org; New York Times. (2018). "Voting Machine Errors in Texas." nytimes.com. (Supplements eManual examples.)
Missouri Statute: Missouri Revised Statutes § 115.449 (1977). "Counting of Votes—Procedure." Available via revisor.mo.gov. (Identified via eManual references, e.g., p. 2, and confirmed as part of 1977 election law revisions.)
Excellent support for justification of hand counting.