Not exactly, they were absentee ballots from precients with no voter registration data listed (which clashes with the primary where Crowder said the data was present). At a minimum, this means it is impossible to fully check the validity of these ballots without more thorough auditing. But really is screams fraud attempt since there's no way to cross check data.
I think it was the other way around, only 71% of ballots were auditable or something like that, meaning almost 30% of the ballots which were counted can not be verified.
Combine that with the fact that the number of people who showed up and signed in at the voting stations in the county are significantly different than the number of votes that the stations reported, and that means there is the potential for a huge number of votes in question as missing or added in.
Not exactly, they were absentee ballots from precients with no voter registration data listed (which clashes with the primary where Crowder said the data was present). At a minimum, this means it is impossible to fully check the validity of these ballots without more thorough auditing. But really is screams fraud attempt since there's no way to cross check data.
I think it was the other way around, only 71% of ballots were auditable or something like that, meaning almost 30% of the ballots which were counted can not be verified.
Combine that with the fact that the number of people who showed up and signed in at the voting stations in the county are significantly different than the number of votes that the stations reported, and that means there is the potential for a huge number of votes in question as missing or added in.
No. 71% of the precincts data did not match the ballets they have.