Dear editor:

In response to Larry French’s letter of April 30 titled “Commissioners are the ones who act like kings,” several key points need to be addressed, particularly around the use of technology to count ballots in elections vs. hand-counting.

1. Budget cuts and the costs of hand counting: The county’s budget has been significantly reduced due to cuts in property taxes, which makes additional spending on hand-counting ballots a major concern. Hand-counting requires a large number of trained personnel to ensure accuracy and efficiency. This would place a financial strain on county resources, particularly given the challenges already posed by the aforementioned reduced funding. The extra cost would exceed the budget allocated for elections, further exacerbating financial challenges for the county.

2. Accuracy of tabulators vs. human error: While the letter raises concerns about machine tabulation, it is important to highlight that modern tabulators have been rigorously tested and proven to be accurate and reliable in counting votes. There have been no verified instances where tabulation machines have made errors in tallying votes. In contrast, human error is always a factor in manual processes, as was recently demonstrated by the Park County Republican Party, where a mistake in counting ballots for the position of County Assessor was made by humans, not machines. Machines, while not perfect, are far less prone to errors than humans (both accidental and intentional).

In conclusion, while some have concerns about the security and accuracy of elections, the facts show that machine-counting is both more cost-effective and reliable compared to hand-counting. Mr. French’s continued efforts to change election processes have shown no evidence of need, rather they appear to be born out of a political or ideological motivation that doesn’t prioritize either security or efficiency. If I may offer a suggestion to Mr. French, focus more on making honey instead of ways to waste the taxpayer’s money.

Dan Schein

Cody