Does everyone understand that an audit is not a recount?

This audit needs to show irrefutable proof that invalid ballots were counted and if so how many and the role the county played in disregarding state law.

Unless those items can be shown, the “count” is really irrelevant.

Didn’t they do multiple recounts?

quote:

---

Didn’t they do multiple recounts?

---

The recounts were a small sample. In AZ I think it was 40,000 votes (cherry picked districts no doubt)

Here's what they are hanging their hats on: "reliability".

The portion of the audit they are looking at is the recount and it came out pretty closely to the previous counts, thus they are using the word "reliable".

LINK

quote:

---

For example, one section claimed that the review found 10,342 “potential voters” who had voted in multiple counties in Arizona, based on voters with identical first and last names, middle initials and birth years. The report said it’s possible for multiple people to share those details, but that the list “should be fully reviewed.”

The report does not state why the audit team did not conduct such a review.

---

quote:

---

The draft report also claims that 23,344 early ballots were cast by people who shouldn’t have received them because they moved — a conclusion reached by comparing the names of voters who cast ballots with information from a third-party data vendor.

---

quote:

---

Another section claims 9,041 people returned more ballots than they’d received

---

The problem is that if I have a scale that weighs everything as 10 pound heavier than what it actually weights, then it's reliable but it's still wrong. In other words, it's results are reliable (in its uniformity of being 10 pounds off) but not valid.

However, if it weighs me as being 10 pounds heavier then weighs me as 19 pounds lighter just moments later, it's neither reliable nor valid.

Until the above-listed discrepancies can be shown as being legitimate and legal, their validity is still in question.