Credibility is not helped by statements like this. Errors were found in 60% of the BATCHES. It could have been a small amount in a large batch. Math is hard, but these exaggerations and hysterical meaningless stats do not help us.
% 60 percent in the
BatchS.
That means All the batches combined that equals the total amount of batches of that 1 county.
%60 means % 60 error.
No way to spin that as small.
Let’s forensic audit all the counties , and the total % error may come down , granted.
Won’t know till we look.
Let’s look /-).
Did you know that Biden "won" Georgia by ONLY 11,000+ VOTES?
This audit was for ONLY FULTON COUNTY AND I BELIEVE SOMETHING LIKE 2000+ VOTES WERE COUNTED FOR BIDEN THAT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN!
I find that interpretation excessively optimistic. The batch error error rate should have been less than 1% in an honest election. I have been an election judge in honest elections and we had way less of an error rate than 1%.
If you add a cup of sewage to a gallon container of pure water, you end up with a gallon container of sewage.
Fido969: Credibility is not helped by statements like this. Errors were found in 60% of the BATCHES. It could have been a small amount in a large batch. Math is hard, but these exaggerations and hysterical meaningless stats do not help us.
Your objection is fundamentally valid, and would be legitimate if this were a simple measuring process - but it isn't. Rather, it is a voting process in which such factors as gerrymandering (and exotic variants thereof) play a role.
Regards,