Without getting into specifics a recount is a waste of time. All it does is recount all the votes - good and bad . What is required is an audit - which ballots were legitimate and which weren’t. A reconciliation of totals doesn’t tell you if votes were flipped and only an audit will expose mail ins without matching envelopes. There are multiple ways of cheating and checking but a straight count isn’t one of them. That’s before data analysis that would show the total improbability of e.g. near 100% voting patterns being reversed late in the count. Just be patient. Let’s see what emerges.
Ah yes Jez, but our friend @Rocker clearly needs re educating that Chocolate Raisins are the superior entertainment snack, and if I bang on enough he’ll finally agree (or give in)
This is the bit I would disagree with, as I see it there are three main audit points 1. The declared result 2. The data uploaded (counted) 3. The box the voter actually ticked For ‘flipping’ to happen there would be a variance between point 1 and point 2 I.e. the output didn’t match the input, I think is what the hand count validates, there was no systemic flipping within the ‘counting machine’ - at least in Georgia anyway - so I do think the hand count is valid and relevant Now there needs to be a check that point 3 agrees to point 2, this is where things get tricky because to select a statistical sample big enough to give a 98% plus certainty of the result would be humongous - basically another election! However for the candidate the voter selected to be changed at or before the point of input, would require collusion from the area election staff (who I am certain are selected properly) on such an industrial scale as to be beyond credibility I have now scoffed all my chocolate raisins and having to start on the Bourbon biscuits
Admin I feel I must apologise for inferring @Dozers Dad mangina was sore as he hasn't been posting since I am truly sorry
This is very true which is why I chose a career in Accountancy However leaving my criminal abilities to one side, if I were thinking of throwing an election I wouldn’t try at the final stage or at the counting stage because discrepancies would be too easy to identify, I would target the ‘which box gets ticked’ stage and this could take several forms, each of which has its own shortcomings 1. Voter suppression or intimidation - zero evidence of any of this going on 2. Intercepting thousands of actual ballot papers and changing the selection - would require a massive resource to execute and result in a high volume of spoiled ballots (don’t think you can have crossings outs) 3. Invent thousands of fictitious voters - should be easily spotted by cross referencing the electoral register 4 Create a fictitious ballot for anyone that hasn’t voted - can only be done after the election otherwise there would be loads of duplicates I am assuming that the US has a similar level of security as us regarding polling stations and security and seals of the ballot boxes on their way to the counting office So I’m still at a loss to see where or how a systemic fraud could be carried out without any objective evidence
That is because they have not presented their case yet, which is going to federal court, not the local state courts which have just been dealing with local irregularities cases. It is the local courts that the media is obsessed with, trying to manipulate public opinion again. The main, potentially explosive, case will be dealt with in the federal courts and should take some time to progress.
