Pfft! So you claim a 4,000. I want a full by hand recount with each poster verifying their posts, and an investigation into the programing of the Escapists to make sure numbers weren't added to the post count fraudulently.
Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)
- Thread starter Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)
- Start date
- Status
Why would the current process, during a signature audit, be "just count, not an investigation, we need the same number"?
Isn't the point of a signature audit to ensure validity of the ballots?
Well, was that a signature audit? And secondly you (nor I for that matter) don't know how the audit is structured. For all we know there is first a count to be made to check if that's ok and than other people process things from there on. Maybe those supposed to check signatures are specialists? In the video the lady is clear, these two are supposed to count the ballots and than the process moves onwards from there. We know nothing of what is supposed to happen after that count and by whom it will be done. These persons being only asked to count means nothing.
Yes.
The people there had the same questions, and voiced them.
Either she's so incompetent that she can't actually explain the process and what the next steps are, which is bad, (since she might be giving wrong instructions) or she's disregarding what is supposed to be done and instructing people to look the other way.
Just so you know he's lying. The video in question doesn't show signature matchers, they're volunteer ballot counters. They thought they saw the same signature, or more accurately "same penmanship", but not only were they not supposed to be checking signatures, they're not trained signature matchers. They volunteered to simply count votes, 1, 2, 3, 4. That they think they saw matching signatures is both a breach of the investigation because that's not their job, and completely irrelevant because its not their training.
If you look through several thousand signatures, I'll bet you see quite a lot that look similar.
Why count ballots all over again during an audit? Aren't they supposed to already be counted?
What's the difference between a recount and an audit?
You can clearly hear that she said "audit".
Last edited:
And that's not counting similar names. How many John Smiths are there, and what are the odds each has a fully 100% unique signature that can't possible look like another. Multiply that by a thousand, make the volunteers tired and overworked, and under extreme pressure with angry Trump cultists shouting at them and recording them, and no wonder they think they see doubles. And honestly there may be signature doubles in that two people with the same name sign it pretty damn similarly, especially at a hurry like when they're voting.
Audits vs. Recounts: What’s the Difference?
Audits and recounts are two different post-election processes, but both are designed to build confidence in our elections. With everything going on in the post-election news cycle, Verified Voting and Citizens for Election Integrity Minnesota (CEIMN) coauthored this FAQ on the difference between...
verifiedvoting.org
Also man of the past there is something called an inventory, which consists of counting ballots again. This is different from a re-count in the ballot processing terms, which is a specific thing. But in laymans term you re-count the votes, literally. 1 vote, 2 vote, 3 vote. So its an inventory to make sure they didn't miss a vote, and they got the number of votes right. Someone hands them a box and says this is 100 votes, but just count them again to be safe. Part of the audit is to literally hand count the ballots to make sure the machine counted the correct number. Machine says this is a stack of 100 ballots, hand count them to make sure its 100. That's the whole "Finish the audit" part. As in they're job isn't to inspect signatures, its literally to count to 100(or however many there were) while being observed to make sure they didn't steal one or put one in.
I know this wasn't recorded in Illinois but here's an example of a ballot checklist:
Part of it is literally verifying the number of ballots. That means to count them, and as they've already been counted, its a re-count.
Imagine the shit you and others would be saying if someone recorded volunteers and said "They didn't count the vote! They don't know how many votes are on this table! Its a fraud!"
Ha, I checked on the process and this is what I found:
Audit Law Database – Michigan
verifiedvoting.org
So it's just a waste of time and effort. Good to know!
...an audit was never about certifying the election results. Its about double checking the election process went ahead correctly, as in the number of votes cast equals the number of votes received. Audits are not supposed to change the outcome of the election, and were never intended to. Its basically just a backup of the election, like when you go to the doctor and they ask you to verify your name and address, etc...it has no bearing on your treatment, and its not supposed to. Its literally just redoing the paperwork.
Recounts are when an issue has either occurred or thought to occur and they go through and re-check everything. The video of people doing an audit is literally just people redoing the basic paperwork, including the literal counting of ballots. They're not supposed to check signatures, that's not what they're trained to do, volunteered to do, and the process isn't at that point anyway.
And if it didn't? "Oh well, we'll fix it next time. Can't do anything about it now!"
Correct actually, once they find any invalid ballots it's going to take months of leg work to determine the nature of the mistakes, determining whether it was fraud or mistake, or even neither. It's going to take way past the deadline to determine exactly how many votes are actually fraudulent and take any action on them. This was always going to be the case and I'm fairly certain you were told this a hundred pages ago.
As to the video, yes, the counters there are dumb and trying to jeopardize the audit by doing it out of order.
How convenient for the one who commits fraud and wins. They'll get away with it.
IF Biden can be shown to be involved in this, he can be impeached. But by your own theory he's not going to be right? It's all a bunch of random actors with no coordination right?
Last edited:
So does Kansas and Mississippi...
Which is GOOD. Maybe, just maybe, the court heard EVIDENCE demonstrating that signature matching doesn't work and agreed that it's stupid.
States can make their own laws about how they conduct their elections and every state does it differently. Unless the state makes a law that is actually against the constitution, it can do pretty much anything it wants with regards to elections. How many years has Georgia stayed Red because of voter suppression laws that other states don't have?
Right.
But it also doesn't make sense for someone to be in power if it's determined that they weren't voted for.
---
Also, Trump calls about his loyal 'pedes to show up on Jan 6th.
Because it's going to take far too long to determine any fraud and by the constitution the transition will have already happened. I mean, we didn't give Gore the presidency over Bush just because it was determined that Gore actually won.
And remember this is all going off the theory Biden and camp cheated. They still haven't proven even a single ballot was illegally cast or that the voting systems were compromised, they only have theories, wild speculation and disproven "evidence". Oh and horrific court cases that either admit they have no evidence, withdraw all evidence so it doesn't have to be proven, or be entirely political in nature like that Texas SCOTUS suit that actually said they wouldn't haven challenged the voting process if Trump had won.
What they're asking for is a delay in the constitution until they're satisfied the election wasn't stolen, with the caveat that they'll only be satisfied if Trump wins, as in there is no legal way Biden could have won. So really they don't want an investigation, 'cause they don't care about its findings. They simply want to illegally overturn the election.
So you would say the PA courts were legally unjustified in their actions, right?
- Status