This seems like a non-starter to me. The hypothetical adjudication fraud would have been caught in the recount (assuming the recount was proper). The real fraud was fake ballots without signature verification. The number of votes was way too high. Fraudulent allocation wasn't the issue.
If actual recounts happened, but they didn’t. They ran them through the same machines, and got the same results. When they did “hand recounts” (without poll watchers) and the numbers were different, they were instructed to just report the original numbers. It was MAGIC.
This seems like a non-starter to me. The hypothetical adjudication fraud would have been caught in the recount (assuming the recount was proper). The real fraud was fake ballots without signature verification. The number of votes was way too high. Fraudulent allocation wasn't the issue.
If actual recounts happened, but they didn’t. They ran them through the same machines, and got the same results. When they did “hand recounts” (without poll watchers) and the numbers were different, they were instructed to just report the original numbers. It was MAGIC.
1776 time perhaps?
When 68% of your votes are "adjudicated" by someone else, that means they were "fixing it", so if it isn't addressed, yes.
The same people are in charge of the recounts and "audits" who performed the original count and adjudication.
Why would you expect the results of the recounts to be different or the "audits" to find anything wrong?