You are supposing that the hand count is unassailable, again, a risky proposition. Even with hand counts, the possibility of discrepancy between separate counts is serious, both because of human error, and because of disputable criteria in counting. 93 votes is practically nothing, out of several thousand.
Typically, the national margin between candidates is less than 5%, which is why 55% is generally considered a landslide. In some states, clearly the margin will be much more decisive, in others much narrower. It is not especially predictable how many states would have to open themselves to the hand count in futures elections, and therefore my warning about a mare's nest holds, especially adding in litigation.
I cannot imagine why you would think that because some states have adopted the hand count as the last resort, that means it should be adopted uniformly. Maybe they were mistaken, maybe they restrict it to instances where it is clearly superior, as when the machines are malfunctioning, maybe they have established criteria for evaluating intent. It does not bear on the situation before us. |
