10465
Comments (1060)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
29
DiscoverAFire 29 points ago +29 / -0

Right. It's supposed to be used for occasional mismarks and corrected by unbiased third parties.

Instead, they can adjust the tolerances so a high portion are rejected and need to be corrected. Then they have people out-of-sight in back-offices or off-site "correct" the ballots, destroy the original images, and flip significant portions of the vote.

Do we have numbers for % of ballots "corrected" ? Any legitimate software should have that number highly visible. EDIT: "The allowable election error rate established by the Federal Election Commission guidelines is of 1 in 250,000 ballots (.0008%). We observed an error rate of 68.05%" - link

6
BillGall2 6 points ago +6 / -0

Sounds correct. Another example - An election worker pumps in a batch of empty ballots into the tabulator. They are kicked out for "adjudication". The ballot goes electronically to Serbia where it is matched up with a dead person from the voter rolls and comes back as a vote for Biden.

1
DiscoverAFire 1 point ago +1 / -0

They don't even need to match it to a person, they're all anonymized at this point.

1
BillGall2 1 point ago +1 / -0

ok. You can still see that the computer made the mark, not a human.

1
alco933 1 point ago +1 / -0

bad link

1
DiscoverAFire 1 point ago +1 / -0

The formatting broke it. Fixed, thanks