Posted on 12/25/2022 3:14:17 PM PST by SeekAndFind
I am pretty technical, and I have performed troubleshooting for some time in multiple industries and with multiple technologies. One of my first rules for troubleshooting any problem is scope. What is the scope of the problem?
To really understand the scope, you must have clarity on the problem. Maricopa County has now admitted there was an issue or issues on election day 2022, and they are undertaking a root cause analysis. The question I did not hear is: a root cause analysis of what problem(s)?
Given the admission of issues, I will frame my problem statement this way:
Were enough ballots printed and not counted at the voting center to impact the results of the election, i.e. is the door #3 count the representation of the impact of the issues? Along with that, did the county accurately report the scope of the problem to the public and to the court? Did the problem impact one group more than others?
Proposed solution: This is a data-driven system with several different databases (an educated guess). First, query the “check-in and print system.” I would pull at least the following information: Voter identifier, party affiliation, check-in date and time, ballot identifier, polling location, terminal ID where the voter checked in.
That will determine the number of people who physically visited a polling site on election day and checked in, and were given a ballot.
Second, using a standard SQL query, join with the table of ballots scanned on election day. There are several ways this could be done, and any database expert should be able to work with the tables and extract this information. With access to the system and a court-appointed expert monitoring me, I would estimate I could pull the data in less than eight hours.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I would also generate a list of ballots not accepted or counted at the polling location, to be used later.
Now, we have the total number of check-ins and the total number of ballots scanned by location on election day. What is that difference? Keep in mind that these election machines were certified, but to maintain certification, the systems should have an error rate of less than one percent. I understand this is a separate issue, but if they were certified incorrectly, that may be an issue to be debated later.
If these numbers don't match, this is closer to the true scope of the problems, not the false door #3 counts. Door #3 only represents a portion of the total population impacted. It represents the people who put the ballot into door #3. I suspect that is why they keep pointing the court and media to the door #3 estimates because the number of impacted voters is higher.
By pulling party affiliation and location, you can now determine if the numbers are significant, how many actual locations were impacted, and if one party was more impacted than the other. I would drop that into Excel and summarize the results by location and party. I would potentially summarize by check-in station to determine if there was a pattern there.
This will also validate whether the door #3 numbers are the full population of issues as presented by Maricopa County or not. To state it differently, this will determine the full scope of the problem statement of how many ballots were printed and not scanned onsite. This should be the problem statement that we are trying to resolve.
But Maricopa County and the Secretary of State seem determined to swear in Katie Hobbs. Maybe she won the election outright. But after admitting there was a problem, the courts now owe the good people of Arizona a thorough vetting of the problems, the troubleshooting, and the final counts. And, after misleading the court several times (for example, only 20% of the locations were impacted was declared in court on election day), there were no page size issues, etc.
The court should have some skepticism of the county’s claims, and the court should appoint an expert to audit the various steps in the process to determine the accuracy of the declarations made to the court by Maricopa County officials.
Here’s the other approach:
Of the votes that were not counted at the polling center, what were the number of votes scanned and counted at the main tabulation center? Again, this will validate the assertion that all ballots were counted.
Taking the list of ballot IDs not counted at the polling location and running that list against the ballots accepted and counted at the main tabulation center would then validate the number of ballots that had an issue at the polling place being counted.
"The was a problem, but we have decided Hobbs is better for you, anyway. Now shut up and eat your peas." :)
There is INDISPUTABLE HARD EVIDENCE of violations regarding CHAIN OF CUSTODY for ballots in transit from the vote count center to RUNBECK, BUT APPARENTLY THE JUDGE IS DEAF, DUMB AND BLIND and refused to see it.
Yeah, the election official perjured himself.
Yet ‘no malfeasance’
What BS
Questions I’d like answered:
the state has been using the same printer for years.
Why now, of all years, did the printer make different sized ballots?
Or who instructed them to do so?
1) who changed the printer settings that affected only election day voting in only Maricopa?
2) case closed
As the author said, we could also take some samples from this data set and run them through the machine to confirm the proper tabulation of the ballots. I.e. hand count 200-300 ballots that you run through the machines and confirm the results. Optical readers are set pretty precisely, and reading a ballot not printed perfectly could directly impact the ability to read that ballot.
I think it is possible, with the right technical expertise, to properly scope the problem and answer the question — were enough voters impacted by the problem to change the election? And were all the ballots cast properly counted?
The trial was basically this:
“Do you have anyone who will come in and admit they purposefully cheated in this election? No? Then you lose.”
I watched most of both days. Was “clear and convincing” to me there was fraud and it was done intentionally.
Hobbs is hardly a beloved character in Arizona, and despite the court ruling, there has been enough evidence presented to raise serious questions about the validity of her vote.
Hobbs may find it extremely hard to govern, with the number of suspicious eyes who will be watching her every move.
Be careful what you wish for, Katie. Have fun.
“Hobbs may find it extremely hard to govern,”
Generally, tyrants don’t have problems “governing”.
First of all, paper was increased for 2022 due to more candidates THAN WOULD FIT ON 19” ballot size.
Actually, that sez it all. Whatever those ballot images were, it wasn’t from 2022. So no, they should not be counted. The election should be called UNLAWFUL, null and void.
Good thing the judge never pledged his sacred honor to protect the U.S. because he would’ve failed miserably this week.
The FFs expected certain death but did the right thing anyhow. This wimp either was threatened or bought off.
Exactly. The “right questions” are not the ones out there in the technical ether. This is a “whodunit”.
Who set up each machine and tested it?
Who witnessed that and signed off on it?
Who came back and changed the machines at the last minute?
When?
Get the list of who did the adjustments.
Trick, threaten, or waterboard them until they give up who directed them to do it.
Work up the line.
Bro… its buried deeper than Joes nose in a 7 year olds head… its over. DS wins again
A SUCCESSFUL recall operation is a viable option, after 6 months from the date of Hobb’s swearing-in.
It is somewhat of a steep bar to get over because it requires valid signatures totaling 25% of the combined election vote total that has to be gathered within 60 days of initiation.
The last recall effort in 2020, fell FAR short of gathering enough signatures to recall Governor (douchebag) Ducey and the (5- backstabbing) Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Hobbs, and the sitting AZ Supervisor of Schools.
EXCERPT: The recall effort collected about 150,000 signatures. It needed 594,111 valid signatures by January 16, 2021, to force a special election. Reaching the goal proved impossible with the pandemic too much of an obstacle. This figure amounts to needing to collect about 10,000 VALID signatures a day, for 60 consecutive days in a row.
>>> I (freepersup) had to seek out a retail location that was one of the HQs for the recall, which wasn’t THAT difficult to do but did require an effort on my part, which for many voters, was a bridge too far. AND I could only sign a recall petition for one of the supervisors, as opposed to signing a petition to recall ALL of the supervisors, who were EQUALLY rotten and despicable McCainiac RINOs.
Further, the corrupt election system MUST be dismantled/corrected, before any recall effort AND SUBSEQUENT ELECTION has a chance in hell of succeeding- so, the onus falls FIRST- squarely on the AZ Legislature. Plus, Hobbs, will be a sitting governor and can veto any legislation sent her way, gumming up the works, and further delaying a recall effort’s launch, which will fade in people’s minds over time and likely lose enthusiasm and favor. Tru’ dat’
I’m not sure, but this may help Kari since it was going to be appealed by one side or the other.
That election official for Maricopa County, Scott Jarrett finally admitted at cross examination, they knew of the discrepancy for the last three voting cycles.
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.