Posted on 05/22/2021 7:33:47 PM PDT by White Lives Matter
Earlier today, auditors in Windham, New Hampshire started testing if “folds in ballots” impacted the vote counts in the 2020 election.
If this is true then this could impact the entire state of New Hampshire.
** The Palmieri Report first reported on this earlier today.
The recount of the votes was very close to the hand recount from November 12. That means the voting machines are confirmed to be unreliable.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
Jovan Pulitzer talks about this.
They can tell if a mailed ballot was ever mailed by the creases in the paper.
They need to do a thorough audit of all states.
This can NEVER be allowed to happen again, and the more overwhelming proof, the better.
Unfortunately, exposing the methodology used for the Fraudulent Election of 2020 will prepare them for how to cheat in future elections.
> “The recount of the votes was very close to the hand recount from November 12. That means the voting machines are confirmed to be unreliable.”
I’m having trouble understanding the info in this sentence. Care to help out?
Yup, thats what this is all about.
Jovan is a brilliant man.
Because of the layout, it affected Republicans much more than Democrats.
Sounded like the error rate was way higher than the margin of victory for Democrats...
My understanding is that the folds, where the fold was in an oval that was marked, resulted in votes not being counted. It failed to read the votes, in other words.
The article is poorly written. What they’re trying to say is ,they conducted two hand recounts and came up with nearly the exact number of votes. The author presumes that we would know that the machine count was different than the hand count.
On the contrary they were very reliable, did exactly what they were programmed to do. Steal the election.
Pretty sure that’s one of the reasons for the UV lights in AZ.
I don't believe that is what this story is about. The story is not particularly clear, but I read it as implying that if the crease created by folding the mail in ballots passes through the "bubble" one darkens to vote a candidate it either causes the machine to read that bubble as if it has been filled, even if it has not, and/or causes vote to not be read, even if a vote has been cast.
Which is it?
How does the described process of running a test batch of ballots marked with a straight party vote reveal anything, unless the alleged folding error affects the straight party bubble?
Can you vote a straight party on the NH ballot? I do not see that option on the sample ballot that accompanies the story.
Which way do the fold creases run? The ballot that accompanies the story has the bubbles for candidates for each office printed levelly on a horizontal line. Is the allegation that the race the fold crease passing through the bubbles causes every candidate to receive a vote, or none?
If the issue is only for the race, or races, where the fold crease passed through the bubbles for that race, AND there is no straight ticket issue, what races are affected? Just one state rep? Was the presidential race affected?
How does this jurisdiction usually vote? By that I mean if the fold crease issue exists, were the largely Republican "found votes" that were previously uncounted, or incorrectly counted as overvotes, lost to a scheme by Democrat officials, or did local Republican officials manage to adopt a ballot counting system that screwed up the results in whatever race happened to be found at the fold crease, and the Republicans lost the most votes because it is a Republican jurisdiction and they had the most votes to lose?
Even if they discover something, then dems will never willing give up the power.
Scorps are the other reason.
The Conservative Treehouse has a much better story. The hand recount was the same, which means the machines are unreliable. They did testing to try to find out why the machines wrongly counted the votes. It appears the folds in the ballots throw off the machines. Mail in ballots are folded, so it is potentially a huge find, so much more testing is required, Apparently, the ballots with no creases, which are in person, counted with no issues.
I agree with you, but who is there to not allow it ? Even the Supreme Court turned a blind to this situation which reeks to high heaven. There appears to be one law for all the crooks in the capitol and another law for you and me. I have a hunch, short of a miracle that things will get only worse before they get better.
Those lights were described as black lights in
one article I read. Were the auditors not
looking for mouse urine after all?
Yes, my understanding is that the folds were said to reduce votes.
It’s a Republican area and Republicans won this race.
But a Democrat was only 24 votes behind, so demanded a recount (they’re allowed to do so).
Republicans were found to have something like 10% more votes in the hand count than machine count.
The other Democrats running had also lost a vote or two, but nothing like the GOP. The woman who requested recount lost 400 votes in the hand count.
So in this case, the top 3 Republicans had won and retained their win, but the machines are now the source of questions.
There were some interesting problems along the way—cameras were turned off for 90 minutes. Dominion people were lurking. And Republicans who (I think) requested this second recount were denied the auditors they wanted, instead getting Verified Voting, a “non-partisan” (e.g., Democrat) group.
But the good news is that the machines are found to be problematic, so there’s a solid reason to demand a more thorough audit throughout NH.
fwiw, I believe Trump and that NeverTrump wimp Ayotte won NH in 2016. Likely Trump in 2020 too, although I haven’t looked into it.
Neither have I & you ont hear it on the news up here.
What about the watermarked ballots?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.