If there was cheating in the last election...

[stopdiggin]

19. the idea that 'hand counting' ballots is more accurate than by machine

is just flatly erroneous. (and I believe that has been demonstrated as fact and borne out in a number of studies and experiments - as well as in real life trials)

The machines themselves (like anything else) are not impervious to error - but they are demonstrably better at the job than humans. And in any event their tabulation and results can be (and are?) double checked against forensic method and hand count auditing at the completion of automated tabulation. (and I believe this is almost routine process as safeguard - in just about every instance of use? if your county or precinct officials are not doing this - then they are most likely not following either the rules they are given or best practices.)

Regardless - the notion that 'hand counting' ballots represents some kind of gold standard - just simply doesn't hold up to the facts.

There is a different argument to be made that paper ballots or some facsimile must be issued, either before or after tabulation, demonstrating a visual of the voter's actual choices (and then retained for a certain time) as safeguard against possible error. But that represents a different issue (IMO) than the one advanced above.