1364
Comments (36)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
15
KMacsBinder 15 points ago +15 / -0

And they admitted that there is no proof of application/certification for absentee ballots that were requested electronically. There is just a mark on a log with no verifiable receipt. That is an open invitation for fraud. Dean and Bob did a great job of exposing that point. Ballots without application/certification must be removed through the recount/audit process.

13
KungFlu19 13 points ago +13 / -0

Dean was pointing out that every legit log entry would have a corresponding email sent out along with it, so reconcile emails sent with log entries. Rustled a few jimmies when he pointed that out.

4
twodumb2live 4 points ago +4 / -0

That's what I wanted to know, too. Is the log just a line item? Or is it the actual data from the online request (for example, their name, DOB, address, etc)? Having more than just a line item would be helpful. Although, If it also transfers the data, I could see where their argument of "having to check actual paper" could have some merit. That said, also having the e-mail that is generated is a bonus, too. I was confused by the clerk's arguments about having to check paper... is that because the "paper" is scanned PDFs? Or just line items?

4
KMacsBinder 4 points ago +4 / -0

I am still unclear where they ended up on that. At first they said an email is sent every time a ballot is requested electronically, then they said there are no emails. There needs to be a physical application/certification for every absentee ballot request or those votes cannot be allowed. That is why they were trying to get rid of this language. They don't have the receipts.