- Joined
- May 25, 2020
She's adjudicating on what looks like a windows machine, so if the committee finds this to be persuasive, the next most logical step would be to requisition the machine in question and feed the software a dummy ballot to prove the potential for abuse. This is also the video that has been going around for a while, though I guess from a different perspective of some moron who can't use his phone's camera correctly.
However, for any other ballot deemed in need of adjudication, I fail to see how else you would go about a process like this beyond an override. The process is largely to remediate ballots that the scanner fails to read properly, or people who fail to fill in the bubbles correctly (but still do so in a clear manner). You would necessarily need the ability to transfer this information to the database's record of the ballot in question.
If this process was done without proper checks and balances, the opportunity for abuse exists.
Presumably these machines would also have 'instances' of the ballot (IE, a record of when a change was made), so you could compare before and after scans via an audit to see if such abuse actually occurred.
Last edited:
