As suspected, the Arizona election was a mess

[Snowfinch]

Here is some legal analysis of how voter rolls are maintained and kept in sync with the central “file”

It seems maricopa county does maintain its own database. I would expect the “forensic” audit to delve into the process used to keep the various database “files” in sync and spell out if these 11000 registrations are bogus, or simply an artifact of the data integration process.
https://www.azag.gov/opinions/i17-006-r17-005

The links uses “updated in real time” to describe what is required by law, but does not delve into what that means exactly or what the process is to revise records or resolve data entry or transmission errors.

So is this a real discrepancy or a bad faith stunt to paint a picture of fraud on top of a benign data integration process?

Far from “confirmed” at this point in time.

[Munimula1]

I think they should also be compelled to reveal how much they got paid for this stunt.

[GrandWazoo]

@Munimula1

I think they should also be compelled to reveal how much they got paid for this stunt.

From what I heard they got paid $150K of taxpayers money. And then OAN set up a donation web site.
But the big ticket looks like it will be the replacement of the voting machines. And if that tab is over a million bucks I expect that there will be quite a few pissed off taxpayers in that county.

[Munimula1]

So a rightie news org is paying for the rightie audit? Sounds fine.

[altair1013]

@Jezcoe

@altair1013

I would like to see how the vote tally looks after discounting the bogus votes.

There is an unfounded assumption here.

Wrong. Not an assumption at all. Read what I said. Not what you think I said. I’m not saying the tally will be different. But I want to know if it is.

Don’t assume. Don’t overthink.

[altair1013]

@Munimula1

So a rightie news org is paying for the rightie audit? Sounds fine.

I think the dems should get involved and look at the findings themselves.

[Jezcoe]

@altair1013

@Jezcoe

@altair1013

I would like to see how the vote tally looks after discounting the bogus votes.

There is an unfounded assumption here.

Wrong. Not an assumption at all. Read what I said. Not what you think I said. I’m not saying the tally will be different. But I want to know if it is.

Don’t assume. Don’t overthink.

The assumption is that there are bogus votes.

They may claim this… but they have to prove it.

[zantax]

@Munimula1

What would you righties say if Dems in states Trump is contesting hired a group called the Power Rangers, who have never audited an election to conduct an audit. When the finished and said everything was kosher, would u believe them?

I don’t know, what would you say if Trumps EPA was having any climate discussion they didn’t like shut down?

[altair1013]

@Jezcoe

The assumption is that there are bogus votes.

You need to read the article. It mentions at least 11,000. Plus 174,000 that cannot be verified.

I would like to see those votes broken down. I assume you would be okay with that?

[Snowfinch]

[quote=“Jezcoe, post:127, topic:239630, full:true”]

@altair1013

@Jezcoe

@altair1013

I would like to see how the vote tally looks after discounting the bogus votes.
[/quote]

There is an unfounded assumption here.

Wrong. Not an assumption at all. Read what I said. Not what you think I said. I’m not saying the tally will be different. But I want to know if it is.

Don’t assume. Don’t overthink.

The assumption is that there are bogus votes.

They may claim this… but they have to prove it.

I Haven’t interpreted the statements to claim “bogus votes”. So far these are statements about accounting and process anomalies.

For example, if the 11000 voters submitted proper registrations and an inept state employee failed to get the registration into the central database is this a bogus vote or a disenfranchised voter?

All we have at this point is statements about the election mechanics and not yet any claim of a bogus vote from the auditors or the AZ senate.

[altair1013]

@Snowfinch

I Haven’t interpreted the statements to claim “bogus votes”

Ok. Call them what ever you chose. I would like to see the 11,000, non registered votes broken down. Would you?

[Snowfinch]

@altair1013

@Jezcoe

The assumption is that there are bogus votes.

You need to read the article. It mentions at least 11,000. Plus 174,000 that cannot be verified.

I would like to see those votes broken down. I assume you would be okay with that

It does not characterize or claim bogus votes. Not yet at least.

In particular the 11000 claim regards the registration database between two points in time. It does not say if this is illegal, unexpected or if it means the votes are bogus.

If these 11000 voters submitted proper registrations in a timely manner, state ineptitude maintaining the database probably does not make these vote “bogus”.

[JayJay]

Just wanted to comment I appreciate you chiming in here with some expertise and the skeptical viewpoint.

I know some of the IT stuff but am not an expert.

I’m learning…and learning how results like this can be manipulated by leaving out context.

This is why I always make the statement that when you don’t know how things work, you will believe anything.

[altair1013]

@JayJay

I’m learning…and learning how results like this can be manipulated by leaving out context.

If this was done. We need to be made aware. Dems cannot do this by remaining silent. Which they seem to be.

[Snowfinch]

@JayJay

Just wanted to comment I appreciate you chiming in here with some expertise and the skeptical viewpoint.

I don’t have any legal or election expertise. Just an open mind and a good sense of how systems work in the real world.

These back-of-napkin knee jerk reactions to a momentary data glitch in a million person/1000 employee paper/computer/telephone system annoy me.

Worse, they may be being exploited to gin up public anger in order to gain political power.

[altair1013]

@Snowfinch

If these 11000 voters submitted proper registrations in a timely manner, state ineptitude maintaining the database probably does not make these vote “bogus”.

Good guess. But it’s only a guess. We need to dig much deeper into this. Yes?

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@altair1013

They were not on the voters rolls at election time. So there’s that. Would you like to know how they break down for Biden/ Trump?

There is no way to obtain that information.

Which I’m sure you’re aware of.

[Snowfinch]

@altair1013

@JayJay

I’m learning…and learning how results like this can be manipulated by leaving out context.

If this was done. We need to be made aware. Dems cannot do this by remaining silent. Which they seem to be.

The article came out today. The press conference did not arrange or include a rebuttal from the election board.

Furthermore, the election board is 4-1 R, and is the proper source of any counter information, not the Dems.

This purports to be an audit and I. The up and up. Therefore the political parties are not the proper source for information.

Let’s give it some time and see what the elections board (R’s controlled) says about these 11000 registrations.

Would have been more fair for Logan to have gotten their perspective before spouting off and making people jump to the conclusion that these are confirmed bogus votes.

[FloridaYankee]

@altair1013

@FloridaYankee

They are getting paid to “find” the exact number of votes Trump needs to win Arizona. Nothing more nothing less.

Paid by whom?

So what do we do now?

A) Assume the data is false and move on?

B) Verify the data is true or false? And if it’s true, tally the actual number of Biden vs.Trump votes? If they are false, send the people who did this to prison?

C) Something else?

Which would you do?

They are going to string this out for months, squeeze every drop of propaganda value they can out of it, and eventually be completely discredited. Then they will CONTINUE screaming Stop The Steal. And you will continue making threads about it.

[Snowfinch]

@altair1013

@Snowfinch

If these 11000 voters submitted proper registrations in a timely manner, state ineptitude maintaining the database probably does not make these vote “bogus”.

Good guess. But it’s only a guess. We need to dig much deeper into this. Yes?

Yes. But I am only offering possibilities, not conclusions. It is YOU who is claiming that a possibility is fact.

So can we agree that these are not “confirmed” bogus votes?