re: Through sworn testimony today in GA, 147,000 votes are invalid if the law is followed.

quote:

---

I mean, they were supposed to be matching signatures as the ballots came in the mail, and there should have been poll watchers standing right there, so what actually happened?

---

The software malfunctioned. And no signature checks were done.

There’s dozens of chain of custody forms missing.

And no video of the drop boxes.

Everyone who’s sane knows what happened.

quote:

---

And no one is ever able to show an affect on the actual vote count. You see things like "30 ballots scanned twice", but did those double scans actually wind up in the vote count? No one ever says.

---

Which is the problem. To rely on the election system, the system needs to explain how these would NOT be included in the vote count. The reality of the situation is that it has not been explained, and thus the system is not being relied upon. It cannot be proven or disproven, it cannot be audited. Before any numbers are counted, recomputed etc., an auditor must first assess the control environment, if the numbers cannot be audited, controls are all you have to analyze. I could explain this to you again, but you never bother to answer.

quote:

---

In this instance you have one commissioner saying he was told there was no signature verification in Fulton County. It's just hearsay evidence, and it's an incredible accusation, so what did anyone fo about it?

---

Great question, can the state prove that the electronic verification was operational and effective? Basic audit procedure. If they want people to believe the results, it’s on them to prove, which is a self evident fact.

quote:

---

I mean, they were supposed to be matching signatures as the ballots came in the mail, and there should have been poll watchers standing right there, so what actually happened?

---

Here is the one you never want to come back to. The issue at hand related to the GBI report you love to reference dealt specifically with the overriding of this mitigating control. You say “GBI did a thorough investigation, no wrongdoing was found, nothing to see here”. Forget the inconsistencies of the interviews, or that Ruby the temporary worker basically bowed out and asked for an attorney, the question was never asked whether the state considered it appropriate to continue counting without poll watchers present. You acknowledge the poll watchers as a mitigating control, but cannot understand how the results are less reliable without that control present (or even overridden).

You seem to have a problem with anchoring, needing your first impression to be disproven in order to question it, rather than asking the questions before your mind is made up. This seems to come from your reliance on authorities in developing your opinions, which is a common aversion to engaging your critical thinking.