The article notes that isn't enough to swing Georgia, which had a final margin of almost 13,000; but that's just one county, and it's just one mode of changing votes. (Recall, too, the Time Magazine 'Secret History of the 2020 Election' in which one of the things the self-described conspirators claimed to have done was to have recruited an "army" of poll workers on their side.)
Georgia Update
Ballots rejected by the machines were returned to election poll workers, who were allowed to alter them and then have them count. "In all, more than 5,000 of the 148,000 absentee ballots cast — or about 3% — in Georgia's largest county required some form of human intervention, according to logs obtained from Fulton County[,]"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
So, by analogy, a dimpled or hanging or unblemished chad is, by discretion of a volunteer, removed from an ambiguous ballot thus to become a Gore vote?
For me, the problem is less the fact of the adjudication and far more the fact that it wasn't the voter who did the adjudicating. If there are ways to let a mail-in voter "correct" his own flawed ballot, so there can be for an absentee voter--who is a by-voter-request mail-in voter.
For me, though, the correct answer is all overvotes be discarded as no vote cast for that candidate by that voter. For an adjudicator who is not the voter to identify the intended vote recipient is for the adjudicator to be mind reading, no matter how obvious the intent of the voter might seem...to the adjudicator or committee of them. And from the image of the ballot (taking JtN as an example) it's also not possible to tell who did the ballot spoiling.
Eric Hines
How does one even determine it was the voter, and not a poll worker, or worker at the counting center that made the marks that put the ballot in question?
Adjudication of said ballots is basically a deliberate pathway left open for fraud. I have a hard time seeing it any other way.
Post a Comment