> What! And how can you say the behaviors in the video is inconclusive proof of voter fraud!?! Or at least suggest voter fraud?!
Yeah, when votes are stored on digital media, an apparent attempt to surreptitiously remove a thumb drive from a place where votes are counted suggests an attempt at compromising the election.
> So... this lady, who looks like her job is to sit there and count mail ballots, also has access to the voting machines (which is nowhere to be seen near her in the video), and is allowed to have custody of the results for who knows how long, while she does other work? These assumptions would mean such lax security, that then sure, rampant voter fraud is possible.
Those aren't really necessary assumptions but I'm glad you can see how its evident that its possible to have enough voter fraud to affect results.
> Next you and the entire fraud-founding Internet commenters will want to see the security procedures of the whole voting operation and that are to your satisfaction.
Yes that's what we want, any guesses on whether any of this will be better next time?
> (in which case, as a supporter of a US government based on sanity rather than nutjob conspiracy theories, I would be worried that rampant and easy voter fraud benefiting Republicans happened)
You should probably decouple your vote fraud concerns from your partisan concerns because comments like this suggest that vote fraud is worse when it benefits one party than the other and that's not the case. Vote fraud is bad because it violates the integrity of the election and because it threatens the legitimacy of the government.
> but don't you think there would have been Republican party officials who have actually reviewed said procedures and who would've said "Hey, why are you letting random people have custody of the digital results?".
The point of the sleight of hand is to remove the drive without the chain of custody documents reflecting that fact. A review of the procedure wouldn't show the conduct displayed in the video, that's the point.
Yeah, when votes are stored on digital media, an apparent attempt to surreptitiously remove a thumb drive from a place where votes are counted suggests an attempt at compromising the election.
> So... this lady, who looks like her job is to sit there and count mail ballots, also has access to the voting machines (which is nowhere to be seen near her in the video), and is allowed to have custody of the results for who knows how long, while she does other work? These assumptions would mean such lax security, that then sure, rampant voter fraud is possible.
Those aren't really necessary assumptions but I'm glad you can see how its evident that its possible to have enough voter fraud to affect results.
> Next you and the entire fraud-founding Internet commenters will want to see the security procedures of the whole voting operation and that are to your satisfaction.
Yes that's what we want, any guesses on whether any of this will be better next time?
> (in which case, as a supporter of a US government based on sanity rather than nutjob conspiracy theories, I would be worried that rampant and easy voter fraud benefiting Republicans happened)
You should probably decouple your vote fraud concerns from your partisan concerns because comments like this suggest that vote fraud is worse when it benefits one party than the other and that's not the case. Vote fraud is bad because it violates the integrity of the election and because it threatens the legitimacy of the government.
> but don't you think there would have been Republican party officials who have actually reviewed said procedures and who would've said "Hey, why are you letting random people have custody of the digital results?".
The point of the sleight of hand is to remove the drive without the chain of custody documents reflecting that fact. A review of the procedure wouldn't show the conduct displayed in the video, that's the point.