[Texas Fossil]

An election official describes machines rejecting thousands of ballots during the election.

Well ShaZammm. Who would ever have thought this possible? Machines rejecting Republican ballots and over counting Democrat votes.

[T.B. Yoits]

So...the election official expected an "error rate", just not that high.

High crimes and treason.

[EBH]

Whoa...

Honestly though, we know Trump should have won in a landslide.

Now what?

[MayflowerMadam]

“that might be interpreted by the machines as an overvote, which would then subtract votes from each of those four REPUBLICAN candidates,”

Well, now; isn’t that just so convenient? I wonder how long it took for the ballot designer and printer to figure that out.

[Pikachu_Dad]

God bless the democrat candidate who requested the initial vote count.

[1_Rain_Drop]

60%?
That’s like, more than half wrong.

[TTFlyer]

The “Vote” in Amerika is dead. The Chinavirus and the UniParty killed it.

[NonValueAdded]

And mail-in ballots are guaranteed to have a fold. Kudos to the auditors who figured this out. Time for a nation-wide recount of every Dominion-equipped precinct.

However, the article doesn't say if the outcome of the twice hand-counted ballots shifted any races. Any word on that?

[Sirius Lee]

60% error rate? And all in one direction? Sounds more like a plan than happenstance.

[metmom]

Thank God for some integrity in politics somewhere in this country.

[marktwain]

An election official describes machines rejecting thousands of ballots during the election.

We are seeing this in several places now.

The most effective fraud appears to have been in three steps:

1 - force the system to process enormous numbers of mail-in ballots, which are far harder to authenticate. This is done with Covid "emergency orders" and corrupt Secretaries of State, court cases, and physical threats by leftist brownshirts such as Antifa and BLM.

2 - Use the machines to put enormous numbers of ballots into adjudication, where the process is far less secure, and there are far more opportunities for political operators to change votes, overcount, or simply give the benefit of the doubt to Biden over Trump.

3. Use the people in the adjudication process to do the above, dump Trump votes or change them to Biden votes.

Antrim County, Michigan 68% ballots to adjudication. Adjudication logs wiped.

Clark County, Nevada (before the election) administrators said 70% of mail in ballots would go to adjudication!

Maricopa County, Arizona - Ballots which went to adjudication are supposed to have a serial number written on the original ballot and on the new ballot created to be counted. Many created ballots have a number, but the original ballots have not been found to match them.

And now, Windham, New Hampshire... The machines are unreliable with as many as 60% of the ballots in error.

It seems that 60% to 70% error rate keeps popping up.

[Sgt_Schultze]

When tabulation “errors” are discovered and they seem to always occur against the same party, can they accurately be described as errors?

[tennmountainman]

Our own 4Liberty is involved in this recount.

[Fresh Wind]

Auditor Says 60% Error Rate “Way Higher Than We Expected”

What error rate did they expect? Anything over 0% would be unacceptable.

[rlmorel]

Yes. This high error rate is a recurring theme in this past election. I think it is significant.

One might reasonably ask themselves the question: "What is an acceptable error rate when ingesting ballots through a scanner or voting machine?"

It is a good question, and an educated guess might be 1-5% overall. Perhaps 10-20% error rate when there is an intermittent malfunction of some kind, and so on.

In the Antrim County (Michigan lawsuit which looks like it will go nowhere now) the forensic analysis showed an AVERAGE of 68% failure rate from across the entire county, with one district recording a high of 82%.

I don't think this is an accident.

When vote tabulation or ingestion records a failure, those failed ballots are flagged and appear to someone working in the Dominion system in what is known as an adjudication queue.

That means someone has to log into the Dominion Democracy Suite system, go into that electronic queue that holds those thousands of failed or indecipherable scans and...adjudicate them.

They are supposed to click on a ballot image, it enlarges to fill their screen, and they manually mark which candidates should have received the vote off of that failed ballot.

But there is another aspect to this software. You can apparently go into the adjudication queue, select multiple ballots (meaning three or four, a hundred, a thousand, or...all of them in the queue.

Then, after selecting them, you can "Batch Adjudicate" them. That is, you don't have to look at each one individually. You can just click a "Select All" checkbox and assign them all.

I can guess that you might wonder: "Gee...if you do it that way, first, wouldn't they be able to pick up who did that "batch adjudication" in an audit trail? And...if someone does a batch adjudication, how does that work with all the down-ballot votes cast for local politicians, judges, and dog-catchers?"

A normal and reasonable person might scratch their chin and respond "Well...those are good questions."

Because they are.

• On the first question about seeing just who did the batch adjudication by looking at the application logs and audit trails, that would seem to be pretty straightforward, except for two things:
  First, nearly everybody was logging into the Antrim County Dominion Democracy Suite systems with the same username and password. Worse, that username and password everyone was logging in under was a superuser account with elevated system and application privileges, meaning they could do EVERYTHING.

  EVERYTHING. That account could do EVERYTHING from wipe the disk to deleting databases or system and application audit logs.

  But even worse...it is said that they had the username and password taped to the front of the monitors where people logged into the Dominion Democracy Suite application. Anyone with physical access to the systems (and I have no doubt that number of people was massive and...unknown.

  So anyone...ANYONE who walked by could sit down, log in, have FULL system and application permissions to do EVERYTHING, and also had FULL access to the SQL database which was not password protected (!!!!!) so you can see...this is an abortion of an IT setup. The flaws in security are so wide, and the access so broad and open, that ANYONE could do any of the nasty things listed above, and in the application and system audit logs which would normally show an entry that looks like this, and one could immediately see the individual user performing the adjudication:

  11/03/2020 09:53:27 PM ET - USER JONES003 BATCH ADJUDICATED BALLOT 00098549831
  11/03/2020 09:53:27 PM ET - USER JONES003 BATCH ADJUDICATED BALLOT 00098820022
  11/03/2020 09:53:27 PM ET - USER JONES003 BATCH ADJUDICATED BALLOT 00098332096

  But in this bastardized, insecure IT setup, the log would look like this, with an anonymous user and nobody would have any clue who was logged in as user ADJUDICATIONUSER since any Tom, Dickless, or Harriett passing by could sit in the empty chair and login with the USERNAME: adjudicationuser PASSWORD: dominion credentials that are taped on the monitor and have full and anonymous access to the system.

  11/03/2020 09:53:27 PM ET - USER ADJUDICATIONUSER BATCH ADJUDICATED BALLOT 00098549831
  11/03/2020 09:53:27 PM ET - USER ADJUDICATIONUSER BATCH ADJUDICATED BALLOT 00098820022
  11/03/2020 09:53:27 PM ET - USER ADJUDICATIONUSER BATCH ADJUDICATED BALLOT 00098332096

• And on the second obvious question about the batch adjudication process and what becomes of the down-vote candidates for local politicians, judges, and dog-catchers?
  It is pretty obvious, if one batch adjudicates a large group of ballots, they can only be batch adjudicated to one candidate or the other...and only one candidate, otherwise...you can't batch adjudicate them, you would have to individually adjudicate them and select multiple candidates for various offices at the federal, state, and local levels. If there were other candidates selected on the ballot and Joe Biden was batch adjudicated on a thousand errored ballots, well...none of the down-ballot candidates would get any votes.

  This is not unknown, nor particularly uncommon. There are people who are only interested in the top of the ballot candidate such as President, and they ignore all the others. There are also provisions for "block voting" that is configured on many systems, and the ballots actually have checkboxes that lets a person select all of one party or all of another.

  The problem is for the people defrauding the vote, is that these numbers are VERY constant across the elections over years. They can apparently predict to a few percentage points overall what percentage of ballots cast will have only one candidate checked, or how many voters use the "block voting" option.

  In this election...it has been my observation in reading the analyses done in various places, that the number of votes cast with only one candidate on the form checked, or "block voting" options are used, are way out of line when compared to prior elections. (This also jibes well with the accurate observation that Biden had no coattails...there were not a lot of down-ballot winners in his own party in the numbers normally seen in elections, and this is also somewhat predictable from election to election, especially in certain voting locations.

Bottom Line: I believe there is a correlation between these error rates, adjudication activities, and the number of ballots with only Biden on them and the block voting option for all Democrats on the ticket.

[jonno]

“Machines rejecting Republican ballots and over counting Democrat votes.”

If the errors were random you’d figure a 50/50 (or so) distribution.

I wonder - what is the actual distribution?

[1Old Pro]

Tip of the iceberg, hopefully all these districts across America are audited.

[Alas Babylon!]

Question:

When the machine rejected those ballots, was a hand count done on them to determine the vote, or where they simply tossed out?

[bray]

Morning Joe and Ho are not going to like this.

[teeman8r]

the machine had to be calibrated somewhat... who signed off and what tests were done.

i smell a demorat. and a serendipitous outcome for them...

[faucetman]

“New Hampshire, Auditor Says 60% Error Rate....”

Thank God it wasn’t 61% or we might have to have a new election. /s

(Whatever number + 1)