New video that allegedly contains recorded audio of Detroit poll workers going over how to commit fraud.
Re-uploading for archival purposes Original: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hI73AprGs4&feature=emb_logo Archive: https://archive.md/qKPSy
www.bitchute.com
1. "process challenged ballots as regular ballots to be counted"
Wow ominous music - this must be fraud! The audio is literally describing standard procedure for Provisional votes
where photo ID with address has been provided and it's been confirmed they haven't registered elsewhere. They're issued an Affidavit ballot. I've attached the Provisional Ballot Form for Michigan. You can see the procedure delineated for "if you answered YES to Question 3". They vote as normal and their ballot is put in the tabulator, then the envelope and form is placed in the Provisional Ballot Storage Envelope to keep a record for later accountability. Nothing described is something new and nefarious happening in 2020. She's describing "this time" for the Mr. Stark example, likely referring to one example of a type of provisional voter.
As
this website summarizes:
"If the voter has a picture ID, issue the voter an affidavit ballot, which will be inserted into the tabulator. If the voter does not have a picture ID, issue a ballot and instruct the voter to place the voted ballot inside the Provisional Ballot Form envelope. Once complete, seal the envelope, and return the sealed envelope to the election inspector. The election inspector places the Provisional Ballot Form envelope inside the Provisional Ballot Storage Envelope for delivery to the clerk. Do not place the Provisional Ballot Storage Envelope in the ballot container."
Saying "all challenged ballots WILL be counted immediately on Election Night" by tabulator is a total misunderstanding of election law and the training instructions. You
need to have photo ID for your provisional ballot to be put into the tabulator.
2. "allow anyone with an easily forged piece of paper to vote"
They don't just blindly follow instructions of whatever piece of paper they're handed. As it says, first, they must search the ePollbook. This will find if they've voted anywhere else already. If a voter is unlisted, they
need to contact the clerk's office to verify voter registration. The youtube video conveniently cut off the bottom of that sample clerk's office registration receipt, which you can view in full
here. It has on it an "application to vote" number, which is entered as the voter ID. It has to match the clerk's office records, so that's not easily forged.
It's also incorrect to state that they can't be uncounted later, since the receipt that's kept on record has the ballot number recorded. If something is amiss later, the vote with that ballot number can be pulled from the tabulation.
I don't particularly like Michigan's policy of allowing people to vote in some capacity without ID, but this video isn't uncovering some conspiracy with forgery on the part of voters and fraud on the part of election workers.
Trump's team has identified 9,000 Nevada ballots cast by people who don't live in the state
View attachment 1717457
View attachment 1717458
Is it legal there? To vote if you used to live in the state but moved?
This isn't quite the smoking gun you'd hope:
The Nevada Republican Party has asked the Department of Justice to investigate its allegation that thousands of nonresidents cast ballots in the state.
“Our lawyers just sent a criminal referral to AG Barr regarding at least 3,062 instances of voter fraud,” the Nevada Republican Party said late Thursday night. The party said the voters “appear to have violated the law by casting ballots after they moved from NV.”
Clark County Registrar of Voters Joseph Gloria, however, said
it is common for out-of-state voters to cast ballots, including those serving in the military, university students and elected officials serving in Washington, D.C.
"They provided us with a list and we'll have to look through that," Gloria said. "
However, their (complaint) is based on something that happens regularly. You don't have to live here to be eligible to vote here."
(USA Today)
Don't be sorry; be better!
Use jdownloader2 and upload a saved copy of the video, like I did!
Plan B: or just find a copy of the video on youtube and link it:
This lady is clueless. She said for Arizona, "when it's within 1% there's an automatic recount as I understand it and/or a party can request a recount".
No, in Arizona it has to be within
0.1% for an automatic recount. Recount requests are not allowed (
src). People can spout complete and utter nonsense with an authoritative voice like they're absolutely certain of what they're saying.
Don't pin your hopes on what she says lol
Not sure if this has been posted. Interesting data analysis.
Thread by @APhilosophae: The following information is provided via an anonymous data scientist and another anonymous individual who wrote a script to scrape the national ballot counting time series data of off the ...…
threadreaderapp.com
Admittedly only skimmed the post, but there are two key points to keep in mind:
1) Florida, unlike other states, has grappled with absentee votes since 2004 and a bunch of laws to deal with them efficiently: namely, allowing officials to count them extra early before the election. That's why their results were completed so quickly. It also means that their absentee votes were pretty much all totalled up rather than being chunked and portioned like other states. So their data over time will look different.
2) It says that absentee ballots go through the postal system so you expect them to be shuffled like a deck of cards... but absentee votes are reported county-by-county,
as you can see here. Some counties are more heavily Dem than others. If you're getting batches of absentee vote counts reporting from a single county at a time, you're going to see jumps in the D/R ratio vs. when they're averaged all together. And generally, the more populous regions (the ones with big cities) report later. And cities lean heavily Dem vs. rural. That's true even in Texas, which Trump won.
www.electiondefense.org
given their liberal biases when it comes to enforcing TOS.
