Why? You can’t answer the question.
And again it does not say why machines could not “see” the ballot.
1 Like
I agree testing is not calibration.
I don’t agree that a voting machine once calibrated will always work for all time in perpetuity.
Brindisi’s team didn’t claim someone reprogrammed the Oswego voting machines in a fraudulent manner, nor did they “imply” this. They simply claimed they did an analysis (which I haven’t seen yet…I’m looking to see if it’s online somewhere) that showed those voting machines appeared to be undercounting votes for Brindisi.
Judge rejected that claim…case was over…Brindisi exhausted a few other options and then conceded the race.
It’s not remotely close to what Trump’s legal team did all over the country.
Those that think these cases were similar are simply easing conflicts in their own minds is my read.
2 Likes
Why would it not?
Serious?
1 Like
Because machines are complex. Even the slightest internal change might create an issue that compounds.
The odds are very slim that these machines did so…and the judge rejected the claim that they did.
But the odds aren’t zero, and that they aren’t zero does not mean the Democrats were either claiming or implying that someone deliberately changed the machines.
They took a long shot gamble and lost.
When that happened, they didn’t keep it up and claim some conspiratorial cover up…Brindisi conceded the race.
See the difference?
I never claimed it was the same as what Trump did.
Was simply asking what would cause a machine to not “see” a ballot. Calibration being out is one cause, the “eye” experiencing a failure, either hardware or software is another.
I didn’t claim you said that.
But that’s the claim of the OP, the claim of the article that was citied by the OP, and the claim of many people who have responded in the thread.
Because as I said.
I don’t know the answer. I don’t care to know the answer. I am only saying what is in the complaint.
I don’t even care if they won or lose.
The only thing I am reacting to is the idea that they are claiming fraud.
They aren’t.
Nor am I. I am asking how. The appearance comes from sampling in comparison to a less reliable method and does not explain the conflict. It just assumes one sampling is correct over the other; which may be correct. But why?
Machines are used precisely to reduce human error.
I’m not saying it is. I’m saying their complaint has numerous similar claims to those made in the Trump Myth. The grammar is similar.
Or pointing out hypocrisy.
1 Like
You betcha. Pretty much always.
Such as in this case. The judge said no, case settled.
Cool.
Seems like a done deal then.
Should have said that to begin with. The answer isn’t in the complaint, so pointing to the complaint was a waste of time.
Well, the macro answer to your question is 2LoT.
I have already said that several times.
No, you haven’t. What you have said several times is “It’s in the complaint, if you’d read it…”
I have found no evidence of Trump doing that. He called for a peaceful protest only. The DNC and their CNN repeating “insurrection” a thousand times doesn’t make it so.
So funny to watch Dems complain about Trump alleging something “without evidence” while they are never able to support their claim that Trump called for an “insurrection”.
1 Like
Yeah… this is still dumb.
And by the way, the answer to my question is really the only thing that matters.
