The Arizona re-count continues.

 5,080 total views,  5 views today

This entry was posted in government. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to The Arizona re-count continues.

  1. Fred says:

    But, but, but this was the most free and honest election ever. What could anyone possibly have to hide; I mean why is anyone doing an audit? Don’t they trust us?

  2. Joe says:

    Sounds like the computer system on the Colonial Pipeline.
    Joe

  3. Deap says:

    How many election departments will be renewing their contracts with “Brand X” voting systems? I hope zero.

    Any “electronic” vote count systems must be fully transparent and capable of public audit. It must be Newtonian in its simplicity: Ballot in – counted – confirmed – ballot out. No fancy software needed.

    I once participated as an official observer in a major British city municipal election. “Ballots” were 3×5 cards. Each stack was counted by one person, handed to another person for a re-count. Then placed in 100 count stacks per candidate in central piles for each candidate. And re-counted again.

    Anything remotely close went through the same recount system again. Our job as observers was to peer over the counter’s shoulders to see they were putting the right cards in the right stacks. We were in direct eyesight view of the task.

    Each party was allowed a certain number of official observers, who were identifiable by official party color ribbon badges. Reminded me of a high school election process, all touched by human hands and no machines. But done in the spirit of civic duty and shared honorable conduct.

    • Same in Russia in the elections I was an official observer on. Now they have transparent plastic box and CCTV cameras everywhere.

    • English Outsider says:

      Deap – I’m sure the vote counting in England is above board. It can’t be infallible – that’s why we have recounts on a close call – but it’s about as accurate as you can get.

      The problem is postal votes. They can be easily harvested.

      • Pat Lang says:

        EO

        The problem is a neo-Bolshevik Democratic party that will do anything, anything to create a USSR clone.

        • English Outsider says:

          Not it you have anything to do with it, Colonel Lang! But those crazies of a hundred years ago had a shattered country to operate in. I refuse to believe that the United States will be such easy work.

          I hope you and your wife are getting over what appears to have been most uunpleasant side-effects of the vaccine. I’ve not heard of similar effects around my way, though after mine I did have a day when I was simply drained of energy. Younger people had more severe reactions but only for a day or so, not lasting weeks as yours have.

  4. Deap says:

    I am beginning to smell the futility of the Benghazi investigations in these election “audits” – dropping into a black hole of total unaccountability, failed memory, partisan self-serving process and obstruction, and eventually ending with one big nothing.

  5. scott s. says:

    As long as we insist on holding dozens of elections simultaneously, tabulation is going to be a problem. After 2000 congress rushed to “do something” about “hanging chads”; the cure is much worse than the disease.

  6. FWH says:

    Most people around the country trusted election officials and trusted the election process to be about right in the past. This old standard will no longer serve.

    Restating a previous comment, every single ballot must probably now be verifiable/auditable in a reliable system. A black box in the form of a voting machine/computer will serve only in parallel to something completely auditable when needed.

    The leading message is about voting integrity. It is not about Republican/Democrat, woke/unwoke, or liberal/conservative.

Comments are closed.