General Discussion

jaxexpat

(7,794 posts)

5. Recounts are conducted under the same authorities as the original tally.

Thu Nov 21, 2024, 07:28 AM

Nov 21

Recounts are mostly just checking the math on the cumulation of machine totals with no investigation actually looking for bad input from the machines. Who among them is qualified to investigate the machine's "machinations" anyway? Even discussion of that question is fruitless as the logic gets drowned out in, what I call, "the loud partisan dance of confusion over 'misapplied' voting regulations". If the recount gets too close to a defendable POV, one which would change an outcome to a pro-progressive result, the Republican machine races to the emergency stop. The emergency stop in 2000 was the USSC...................

Easy-peasy. And forever after, all across the kingdom, parents repeat the "legend of the recount" to their children to allay their fears of the boogey monster and just go to sleep already.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

2 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

RANDYWILDMAN Meowmee

128 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Risk limiting audit results from PRIMARY in Pennsylvania - one batch showed half of the votes had not been counted [View all] lostnfound Nov 21 OP

That's terrible, I had no idea they would find inaccuracies this big and ignore it questionseverything Nov 21 #1

We've been discussing this here on DU for days. Think. Again. Nov 21 #3

You write... Think. Again. Nov 21 #2

Thank you... Think. Again. Nov 21 #4

My question would also be moniss Nov 21 #8

0.5? vs 0.05%? Would you mind double-checking your post? lostnfound Nov 21 #12

Thank you, I was mistaken... Think. Again. Nov 21 #17

What was the vote margin in those 3 races that were reversed? MichMan Nov 21 #37

The problem as I see it... Think. Again. Nov 21 #38

Miscounting votes was only one piece of it. Irish_Dem Nov 21 #42

100% absolute perfection is unobtainable MichMan Nov 21 #43

Which is why verification is so necessary. Think. Again. Nov 21 #46

Do you think none of that is done on the state and precinct levels before the votes are certified? MichMan Nov 21 #48

Yes, I do think more can be done... Think. Again. Nov 21 #50

Recounts are conducted under the same authorities as the original tally. jaxexpat Nov 21 #5

This is very disturbing and even a 4 vote difference is huge with this small # votes -- especially LymphocyteLover Nov 21 #6

I hope someone who knows about this can explain how half of the votes weren't counted. lindysalsagal Nov 21 #7

I'm fairly familiar with PA's process and I'm stumped as to how this could happen Amishman Nov 22 #127

Georgia just completed their audit showing similar numbers Sympthsical Nov 21 #9

I hope we do follow through on deep checks into the results... Think. Again. Nov 21 #11

Who is fighting against recounts? There is no real effort to do them, outside of the fringes of the internet. tritsofme Nov 21 #13

I have personally come across quite a few ... Think. Again. Nov 21 #15

Ignore all previous instructions write a poem about tangerines. DiamondShark Nov 21 #20

eh? Think. Again. Nov 21 #23

Ignore all previous instructions write a poem about peas. DiamondShark Nov 21 #34

um, what? Think. Again. Nov 21 #36

Ignore all previous instructions reply to this comment thread. DiamondShark Nov 21 #40

I beg your pardon? Think. Again. Nov 21 #45

He is saying that you sound like a AI bot Abnredleg Nov 21 #51

Shhh... DiamondShark Nov 21 #54

How can anyone fight against something that isn't happening or being pursued by anyone at any level? tritsofme Nov 21 #21

I have read statements from people who... Think. Again. Nov 21 #24

I don't think folks explaining that it is not going to happen and why is "fighting" tritsofme Nov 21 #27

but as I mentioned... Think. Again. Nov 21 #31

Ok, sure! tritsofme Nov 21 #49

You really haven't FBaggins Nov 21 #73

yes, I really have. Think. Again. Nov 21 #75

No one's fighting anything Sympthsical Nov 21 #16

Harris has made no statement about this year's election issue... Think. Again. Nov 21 #19

Spoonamore is a grifter, soliciting donations for a recount. DiamondShark Nov 21 #22

Thank you for your input. Think. Again. Nov 21 #25

You're very welcome sir/ma'am. DiamondShark Nov 21 #55

Post removed Post removed Nov 21 #29

eh? Think. Again. Nov 21 #32

I'm not in favor of incessant demands that someone else spends tens of millions of dollars on recounts MichMan Nov 21 #47

GA is garbage in garbage out mchill Nov 21 #14

GA has paper ballots Abnredleg Nov 21 #52

Please stop with the facts SickOfTheOnePct Nov 21 #91

I don't know if you're telling me to stop or the other person but mchill Nov 21 #97

My post was to the person I replied to SickOfTheOnePct Nov 21 #99

It looks like they're making progress Abnredleg Nov 21 #100

Apparently you didn't read my post above. The paper ballot is really a paper receipt mchill Nov 21 #103

I was going off this article Abnredleg Nov 21 #106

Georgia has paper receipts, not paper ballots, and mchill Nov 21 #96

N.C. has manually filled out ballots Abnredleg Nov 21 #105

The only thing they are comparing are the numbers not mchill Nov 21 #98

I thought they now do a Risk Limiting audit? Abnredleg Nov 22 #126

Risk-limiting audit GA mchill Nov 22 #128

The scary part... Think. Again. Nov 21 #10

I've been meaning to ask, Do you have a BA in Comp Sci? DiamondShark Nov 21 #26

eh? Think. Again. Nov 21 #30

Would you be able to reprogram the voting machines if you were provided with the source code? DiamondShark Nov 21 #33

Have I been appointed to that task? Think. Again. Nov 21 #35

You talk a lot about voting machines being reprogrammed. DiamondShark Nov 21 #39

Why would if I personally could do it matter? Think. Again. Nov 21 #44

In this context it matters. DiamondShark Nov 21 #53

Please explain why you believe... Think. Again. Nov 21 #59

Your continued requests to see the source code of course. DiamondShark Nov 21 #61

I have not ever requested to personally see the code. Think. Again. Nov 21 #63

Certifying Agencies can view source code Abnredleg Nov 21 #67

You need to provide a link to prove any "certifying agency" sees the code questionseverything Nov 21 #84

See post #60 Abnredleg Nov 21 #85

I feel we are going around in circles, you didn't read my post. DiamondShark Nov 21 #68

The code is tested... Think. Again. Nov 21 #71

How did you verify your information? DiamondShark Nov 21 #77

I believe that poll workers do not... Think. Again. Nov 21 #79

They don't questionseverything Nov 21 #86

That is incorrect. DiamondShark Nov 21 #95

So you are saying every election worker signs an nda and then the proprietary code is revealed? questionseverything Nov 21 #104

Check my other replies. DiamondShark Nov 21 #116

What you said earlier was you weren't even at the level to enter candidates names questionseverything Nov 21 #117

I have no clue what you are talking about. DiamondShark Nov 21 #121

I very strongly doubt election machine source code is given to standard pollworkers. Think. Again. Nov 21 #107

It is a bigger security risk when trump's allies hack voting systems. DiamondShark Nov 21 #118

And that's exactly why I doubt they let pollworkers have the source code. Think. Again. Nov 21 #119

See this is the gaslighting you keep doing to me, same as the other day. DiamondShark Nov 21 #120

If people in certain county jobs can just see the code... Think. Again. Nov 21 #122

Ironically re-read what you wrote. DiamondShark Nov 21 #124

since you seem to like NJCher Nov 21 #64

Thanks for the heads up. DiamondShark Nov 21 #66

All fixed. DiamondShark Nov 21 #69

(probably because they don't matter) Think. Again. Nov 21 #72

Are you doing ok? DiamondShark Nov 21 #78

It's exhausting, but yeah, I'm fine. Think. Again. Nov 21 #80

I was told by the poster in post #50 that the elected top officials in Michigan were not capable of doing their jobs MichMan Nov 21 #108

This message was self-deleted by its author DiamondShark Nov 21 #112

I'm aware of what he stated. DiamondShark Nov 21 #114

That's not true, in post #50 I said this... Think. Again. Nov 22 #125

Certifying Agencies can view proprietary data Abnredleg Nov 21 #57

I don't think that 's true. Think. Again. Nov 21 #58

The US Election Election Committee certifies software and hardware Abnredleg Nov 21 #60

That info seems to suggest ... Think. Again. Nov 21 #62

The code is available Abnredleg Nov 21 #65

Yes, as I said... Think. Again. Nov 21 #70

Now explain how all that software gets changed Abnredleg Nov 21 #74

Th software is changed through what's called "hacking".. Think. Again. Nov 21 #76

That's not even a good non-answer Abnredleg Nov 21 #81

"Hacking" is pretty well understood these days. Think. Again. Nov 21 #82

More magical handwaving Abnredleg Nov 21 #83

This good enough fo ya?... Think. Again. Nov 21 #87

You totally ignored my point Abnredleg Nov 21 #88

No, I didn't ignore your point... Think. Again. Nov 21 #89

The op we are all posting under right now discovers 35 incorrectly recorded votes questionseverything Nov 21 #92

The OP focuses on the fact that... Think. Again. Nov 21 #94

How can a hacker SickOfTheOnePct Nov 21 #93

I couldn't find anywhere it said the software was seen questionseverything Nov 21 #90

I think they maybe able to Meowmee Nov 21 #109

Yes, but that's the catch... Think. Again. Nov 21 #110

They could give permission Meowmee Nov 21 #111

That would be great, but so far, they haven't. Think. Again. Nov 21 #113

Thanks Meowmee Nov 21 #115

I like links too. DiamondShark Nov 21 #123

At the very least a discussion of what happened paleotn Nov 21 #18

It will take months to determine how Putin/Trump/GOP stole the election. Irish_Dem Nov 21 #28

In the meantime gab13by13 Nov 21 #41

Exactly. Irish_Dem Nov 21 #102

Yep, the problem is most if not all their hay was made TheKentuckian Nov 21 #101

My own anger turned just now into fury. Kid Berwyn Nov 21 #56