Reply #85: The wording seems confusing and ridiculous to me [View All]

[Awsi Dooger]

I haven't been to this forum in quite a while and this is my first view of this thread, but immediately upon reading the question I was struck at the senseless inconsistencies.

"In some states, members of the public have the right to view the counting of votes and verify how that process is working. In other states, citizens are in effect barred from viewing vote counting even if they would like to view the process"

Where is the verify aspect in the second sentence? It should say "would like to view and verify the process."

That's hardly the major flaw. Notice in the lead-off sentences it's very clear that viewing refers to counting of the votes. The word view or viewing is two words preceding counting. However, in the money questions for some inane reason it turns into "right to view and obtain information about how election officials count votes." Why don't we squeeze a few dozen more words in there, so view and count can be on separate pages like the Florida ballots in 2000?

I'm not a total dummy and initially I read that to mean right to view and obtain information about how the process would be done, not right to view the vote count itself. I knew that couldn't be correct based on the hoopla regarding the findings but when I read it again I came up with the same thing.

It makes no sense to me why a simple term like verify was replaced by obtain information. Far superior and simpler phrasing would be:

A. Citizens should have the right to view and verify the vote counting process.

B. Citizens should not have the right to view and verify the vote counting process.