• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

2020 United States presidential election - Conspiracy theories, alleged fraud, etc

Status
Not open for further replies.
Matthew Ellard said:
Yep. That's why the you tube video claimed it was filmed in an electoral office but can't say where, nor name the "electoral officer" doing it. ;)
Click to expand...
There were a number of quite laughable giveaways from the demonstration that it was not a real ballot scanning system at all but a basic training system used to introduce the process for new users. The "oversight oversight" was particularly hilarious, and obvious. But of course, the gobsmacked (and pig-ignorant) "reporters" would have zero appreciation of any of that because this act played right into their prejudices.

The person demonstrating was very likely a trainer, so technically she could be a "voting official" in that she trains "official" ballot-counting users on this stuff. But that is somewhat like saying I am a "front-line COVID worker" because I work in a major hospital network, even though I am in the IT section. I suspect the nearest she gets to real ballot work is to see her students do it on the TV news.

Being a trainer, this looks like a classroom in some training facility somewhere.
 
Norman Alexander said:
As our corporate expert on scanned document management, I'm willing to bet that is not how the process actually works at election time. Far from it, I would expect.
Click to expand...

From what I understand, based on watching some Georgia TV stations during the days after the election, it's pretty close. The difference is that instead of one election supervisor making the decision on any given ballot, a group of election officials make the decision. (A four or five person panel, I believe.) I don't know if the software has a provision for recording each of the officials' decisions, or getting input from more than one person during the adjudication process shown in the video, or if the person holding the mouse gets to put the decision into the computer. I remember, though, that what happened is that the ballots were scanned, and number of them were marked for adjudication, and there were people, a panel appointed by Republicans and Democrats, standing by who would make the call who the voter intended to vote for, or if the ballot contained no valid vote. That vote would be entered into the system. That all fits with Bubba's latest video link.

Nothing in either the TV coverage I saw, or the Bubba video, described what actually got recorded by the system. There is obviously a database record created for the ballot and indicating which ballots have to be adjudicated. I am assuming that record is permanent and recorded, so that there is a log of which ballots were adjudicated, and by whom, and probably when. That's just an assumption, though. That's the way I would do it, and I think that's the way pretty much anyone with any experience on a remotely similar system would do it.
 
Meadmaker said:
From what I understand, based on watching some Georgia TV stations during the days after the election, it's pretty close. The difference is that instead of one election supervisor making the decision on any given ballot, a group of election officials make the decision. (A four or five person panel, I believe.) I don't know if the software has a provision for recording each of the officials' decisions, or getting input from more than one person during the adjudication process shown in the video, or if the person holding the mouse gets to put the decision into the computer. I remember, though, that what happened is that the ballots were scanned, and number of them were marked for adjudication, and there were people, a panel appointed by Republicans and Democrats, standing by who would make the call who the voter intended to vote for, or if the ballot contained no valid vote. That vote would be entered into the system. That all fits with Bubba's latest video link.

Nothing in either the TV coverage I saw, or the Bubba video, described what actually got recorded by the system. There is obviously a database record created for the ballot and indicating which ballots have to be adjudicated. I am assuming that record is permanent and recorded, so that there is a log of which ballots were adjudicated, and by whom, and probably when. That's just an assumption, though. That's the way I would do it, and I think that's the way pretty much anyone with any experience on a remotely similar system would do it.
Click to expand...
Those steps would indeed be part of the process.

Ordinary unadjusted ballots would need approval of multiple people. In reality, these should be the official observers, the scrutineers, as agreed prior. The ballot images will be tagged with identifiers of adjudicator and scrutineers, and the actions timestamped. It is also possible a separate log will be kept of all these. This is all separate from the voter rolls too.

Each individual ballot that is "adjusted" will have a sequence of images showing before-and-after, image editing CRC's or similar, plus the tagging, timestamping and logging as above at each step.

The next steps in the process would be more review and cross-checking of images for duplicates (barcodes) and various other disparities. A lot of this is automated, but this is where multiple scans of the same ballot get identified and eliminated. There may be more stages of review as well.

Only when the ballot images pass these hurdles are valid ballots then even released to be counted. After the count, there is a lot of cross-checking with voter rolls and other physical measures. Then the voter rolls, ballot papers, the independent logs, the original batches and the relevant databases are securely archived. The whole process can be restarted from scratch if necessary, at any time in the future.

So the idea from that silly video that some evil Democrat-inclined vote-counter can alter and submit multiple ballots in secrecy on their own and not get noticed or identified or caught before vote counting, and repeating the scam accurately multiple times when they do recounts, is ludicrous in the extreme.
 
Last edited:
The Big One fails.


Supreme Court rejects Texas lawsuit to overturn Biden victory.

HOUSTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a lawsuit backed by President Donald Trump to overturn Joe Biden’s election victory, ending a desperate attempt to get legal issues rejected by state and federal judges before the nation’s highest court.

The court’s order was its second this week rebuffing Republican requests that it get involved in the 2020 election outcome. The justices turned away an appeal from Pennsylvania Republicans on Tuesday.
Click to expand...

Also posted in other fraud thread.
 
I am led to understand that the talking heads at Newsmax or whatever it's called are saying it's far from over. I expect we'll see some parroting of that here soon.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom