The REAL story of signature verification in Georgia
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (10)
sorted by:
Guess who did the "risk limiting" audit in GA?
VotingWorks
OP could have an argument with the Tweet he posted. Of course, it will come down to how much discretion is afforded to the clerk — but an argument can be made in OP's favor nonetheless. For the record, and as I have pointed out to you before, you're wrong.
VotingWorks indeed did assist with an audit in Georgia, however it for the Democratic primary. The Presidential election, on the other hand, was subject to a fully manual, hand-sorting audit. This audit was completed by county election officials, not VotingWorks.
That "fully manual hand sorting audit" should be called a "hand recount" because they just recounted the ballots by hand and compared it to the machine count. This doesn't find mail-in fraud. Multiple counties around the country had impossibly low rejection rates of mail-in ballots when compared to past elections. Why do you shills fight so hard against transparency?
Bear in mind, your initial objection herein was to who conducted the audit. Having seen you're wrong, you're now objecting to how the audit was conducted. In trial advocacy, this is what we call inconsistency and bias. It looks really bad to a jury.
In my personal opinion, I would totally support a signature audit. However, there is no warrant to delay the transition of power to do so, as we do not presume regularly conducted elections to be fraudulent until proven valid. Likewise, I fully expect to hear another round of complaints from the MAGA crowd about "undue exercise of discretion" when a signature with an extra squiggle is not rejected in the audit. Because — at the end of the day — members of that crowd are concerned primarily with winning, not with whether the election was valid.