It counts what it can see.
Didn’t he get hand recounts in places?
Indeed. So why couldn’t it “see” these?
Because… if one reads the complaint… the machines in Oswego County were not tested before the election.
It’s all in there.
1 Like
Don’t know… don’t really care.
Just reacting to the idea that they are claiming fraud.
No. I did read it. That’s not how calibration works. Testing is verification.
The machine worked last time. There is no reason it should not work this time if nothing changed. Machines are dependable.
The test is just to verify settings have not been changed or however it works. Or that setting changes are accurate.
They should get their recount, but my question is not answered.
They are implying something.
If one reads the complaint. One would see that by law the machines have to be tested before each General Election. They weren’t.
Seriously… it’s like only 15 pages long and double spaced.
2 Likes
I did read it, please stop the behind the hand implying that I didn’t. I know the test wasn’t done. That does not explain the failure of the machine in and of itself, although it is basis for the recount.
The machine should have worked even without the test unless something was changed since the last time it worked. A test is a verification, not a reason for failure.
The machine did not “not see it” because it wasn’t tested. “Not seeing it” wasn’t caught because it wasn’t tested.
If I set up a copy machine and it works. It works. If I come back 4 years later, it will still work unless something happens. Do you run “Print A Test Page” on your copier every time you use it?
Seriously.
Not testing is a process failure, not a machine failure.
You don’t understand how little I care about this case.
I don’t know the ends and the outs.
I don’t know the technology.
I don’t know what it takes to calibrate the machines or how the optics work ot any of it.
I am only saying what is in the complaint.
Whether they win or lose their complaint… I could give a crap.
What I am reacting against is that they claimed fraud ( they didn’t) and that this is analogous to what Trump did (it isn’t)
Yet…
Is failure to test not a form of fraud? Was it not intentional?
No.
It is incompetence
What’s the difference? Do you really believe those people appointed to those positions are that stupid?
Yes.
Yes I do.
If they appointed stupid people, the appointers defrauded the public.
Yeah… this is getting dumb.
Since you cannot answer my question, I agree. Have a nice day.
That does not explain why the machine failed to “see” the ballots. So, the question remains, what causes a machine to not “see” the ballot.
1 Like
Keep reading the thread.
