It would make absolutely no sense to have an election standard like that. Elections cost a great deal to administer. Assuring accurate results is one objective, probably the primary objective, but somewhere down the list is a goal of administering a proper election at close to minimal reasonable expense to the taxpayers. If you had a standard like that - you would have endless objections leading to invalidation of elections, and requiring endless re-runs.
A lot of discussion has to do with the ballots that were printed with settings that resulted in not enough toner being used in the printing process, which meant that they were rejected by the scanners. The information so far suggests they were sequestered and tabulated later with scanners adjusted for the lower contrast. The details of that are important, and need to be substantiated, but if that was what happened, it's no reason to invalidate the election.
It would make absolutely no sense to have an election standard like that. Elections cost a great deal to administer. Assuring accurate results is one objective, probably the primary objective, but somewhere down the list is a goal of administering a proper election at close to minimal reasonable expense to the taxpayers. If you had a standard like that - you would have endless objections leading to invalidation of elections, and requiring endless re-runs.
I’d rather my taxpayer money went to fair elections than about 90% of the crap it goes to now. only thing more important maybe is emergency services and national defense. what good is everything else if people dont have a fair voice in government? we are slaves then....