Looks like it wouldn't have mattered if the Post Office stole your ballot
or not.

"Nothing's working" in Arizona.

https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1590023178755407872?s=61&t=58lkFhHfeARA9ESPtWAw2w

We can land a robot on a 30,000 mph comet, but counting pieces of paper are
apparently beyond us in 2022.

BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Looks like it wouldn't have mattered if the Post Office stole your ballot
> or not.
>
> "Nothing's working" in Arizona.
>
> https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1590023178755407872?s=61&t=58lkFhHfeARA9ESPtWAw2w
>
> We can land a robot on a 30,000 mph comet, but counting pieces of paper are
> apparently beyond us in 2022.

More from Maricopa County's Election Day failures:

https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1589987833846333440?s=61&t=58lkFhHfeARA9ESPtWAw2w

BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Looks like it wouldn't have mattered if the Post Office stole your ballot
> or not.
>
> "Nothing's working" in Arizona.
>
> https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1590023178755407872?s=61&t=58lkFhHfeARA9ESPtWAw2w
>
> We can land a robot on a 30,000 mph comet, but counting pieces of paper are
> apparently beyond us in 2022.
>

Lol

In case I didn’t mention it, I actually got my ballot this year, a full
week after they said it was too late to return it by mail.

I joined that next door thing you talked about. A week or two ago somebody
said their mailman of 35 years had just retired. The next day I started
getting mail again, first time in a decade.

I am also getting junk mail saying it’s giving me a list of what years I
voted in. But there’s several names on the list and the others are clearly
phony. But it says I haven’t voted in the years my ballot was stolen so
apparently The USPS was throwing them out, not submitting forgeries.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Looks like it wouldn't have mattered if the Post Office stole your ballot
>> or not.
>>
>> "Nothing's working" in Arizona.
>>
>> https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1590023178755407872?s=61&t=58lkFhHfeARA9ESPtWAw2w
>>
>> We can land a robot on a 30,000 mph comet, but counting pieces of paper are
>> apparently beyond us in 2022.
>
> More from Maricopa County's Election Day failures:
>
> https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1589987833846333440?s=61&t=58lkFhHfeARA9ESPtWAw2w
>
>

I may get no service is from Maricopa County but at least if I don’t pay
them thousands of dollars in tribute a year they send men with guns and
take away my home.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 11/8/22 12:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Looks like it wouldn't have mattered if the Post Office stole your ballot
> or not.
>
> "Nothing's working" in Arizona.
>
> https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1590023178755407872?s=61&t=58lkFhHfeARA9ESPtWAw2w
>
> We can land a robot on a 30,000 mph comet, but counting pieces of paper are
> apparently beyond us in 2022.

Lying about the election(s) is all you turds in the punch bowl have left.

On 11/8/22 2:09 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Looks like it wouldn't have mattered if the Post Office stole your ballot
>> or not.
>>
>> "Nothing's working" in Arizona.
>>
>> https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1590023178755407872?s=61&t=58lkFhHfeARA9ESPtWAw2w
>>
>> We can land a robot on a 30,000 mph comet, but counting pieces of paper are
>> apparently beyond us in 2022.
>
> More from Maricopa County's Election Day failures:
>
> https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1589987833846333440?s=61&t=58lkFhHfeARA9ESPtWAw2w
>

Love it! If you're citing Charlie Kirk's tweets now you must be
desperate from being so decimated. Keep it up! (I know, poor choice of
words for a eunuch.)

On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 13:41:37 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:

>BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Looks like it wouldn't have mattered if the Post Office stole your ballot
>> or not.
>>
>> "Nothing's working" in Arizona.
>>
>> https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1590023178755407872?s=61&t=58lkFhHfeARA9ESPtWAw2w
>>
>> We can land a robot on a 30,000 mph comet, but counting pieces of paper are
>> apparently beyond us in 2022.
>>
>
>Lol
>
>In case I didn’t mention it, I actually got my ballot this year, a full
>week after they said it was too late to return it by mail.
>
>I joined that next door thing you talked about. A week or two ago somebody
>said their mailman of 35 years had just retired. The next day I started
>getting mail again, first time in a decade.
>
>I am also getting junk mail saying it’s giving me a list of what years I
>voted in. But there’s several names on the list and the others are clearly
>phony. But it says I haven’t voted in the years my ballot was stolen so
>apparently The USPS was throwing them out, not submitting forgeries.

Apparently your old mailman was convinced your home didn't exist. So
that mail was either tossed or returned. Now you just have to hope
that whatever convinced the old mail man you didn't exist doesn't
happen to the new mail man.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 13:41:37 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Looks like it wouldn't have mattered if the Post Office stole your ballot
>>> or not.
>>>
>>> "Nothing's working" in Arizona.
>>>
>>> https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1590023178755407872?s=61&t=58lkFhHfeARA9ESPtWAw2w
>>>
>>> We can land a robot on a 30,000 mph comet, but counting pieces of paper are
>>> apparently beyond us in 2022.
>>>
>>
>> Lol
>>
>> In case I didn’t mention it, I actually got my ballot this year, a full
>> week after they said it was too late to return it by mail.
>>
>> I joined that next door thing you talked about. A week or two ago somebody
>> said their mailman of 35 years had just retired. The next day I started
>> getting mail again, first time in a decade.
>>
>> I am also getting junk mail saying it’s giving me a list of what years I
>> voted in. But there’s several names on the list and the others are clearly
>> phony. But it says I haven’t voted in the years my ballot was stolen so
>> apparently The USPS was throwing them out, not submitting forgeries.
>
> Apparently your old mailman was convinced your home didn't exist. So
> that mail was either tossed or returned. Now you just have to hope
> that whatever convinced the old mail man you didn't exist doesn't
> happen to the new mail man.
>

Yeah, it would be bad if he teaches the new guy the route.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>Looks like it wouldn't have mattered if the Post Office stole your ballot
>or not.

>"Nothing's working" in Arizona.

>https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1590023178755407872?s=61&t=58lkFhHfeARA9ESPtWAw2w

>We can land a robot on a 30,000 mph comet, but counting pieces of paper are
>apparently beyond us in 2022.

I miss hanging chads, which turned out to be more of an issue because
Florida had printed ballots on the wrong paper stock, ignoring the
humidity of ocean air along the Atlantic seaboard and not because of
lack of dexterity holding the punches.

I've been an election judge in various jurisdictions off and on going
back to the 1980s. In a suburban precinct, we had a choice of systems.
Mail-in voting is done on paper ballots. At the polling site on election
day, voters can use paper ballots or a touch screen marking system that
prints a paper ballot. At early voting site, it's all touch-screen
voting given the difficulty of maintaining an inventory of paper ballots
from hundreds of precincts, many of which had multiple ballot styles
anyway.

We had to instruct voters to mark paper ballots with Sharpies. Sharpies
are designed to soak the ink into the paper. From the voter's
perspective, they see bleed through. Now, the bleed through is
anticipated and the ovals are set up so they don't line up on the
two-sided paper ballot. But becuse it's a Sharpie, it's real easy to
create extraneous marks and ballots with extraneous marks too close to
the oval are rejected. We had an ususually high number of spoiled
ballots due to extraneous marks. Sure, a few voters spoiled their
ballots due to mismarking their choices.

From the scanner's perspective, the fact that the ink soaks into the
paper completely prior to scanning is a real advantage. Typical ink from
a ball-point pen, for instance, is still giving off fumes and will
create a haze on the scanner lens. Not an issue with mail-in ballots, I
suppose, given that there's a couple of days between marking the ballot
and when it's received at the mail-in vote processing facility and then
in my state, the mail-in ballots aren't even read till after the polls
close on election night.

But with the use of a ball-point pen, the voter is far less likely to
create an extraneous mark that will cause the ballot to be rejected than
with a Sharpie.

I suspect that what happened at this polling site, the judges were
allowing voters to mark their ballots with ball-point pens instead of
physically handing them Sharpies, so the scanner lens got clogged.

The paper ballots created by the touch screen marking systems were
generally ok but ballots could be rejected because my initials weren't
read. A ballot must be initialed by an election judge in order to be
cast. A mail-in ballot gets initialled during processing after polls
have closed on election night. A paper ballot is initialled before the
voter marks it. But the ballot from the touch screen isn't initialed
till after it's been created. I had to write my own initials much larger
which suggests that place on the ballot that the scanner looked for the
judge's initials was not in exactly the same location as the box that
was drawn for the judge to initial within. And I was using a Sharpie.

BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>>Looks like it wouldn't have mattered if the Post Office stole your ballot
>>or not.

>>"Nothing's working" in Arizona.

>>https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1590023178755407872?s=61&t=58lkFhHfeARA9ESPtWAw2w

>>We can land a robot on a 30,000 mph comet, but counting pieces of paper are
>>apparently beyond us in 2022.

>More from Maricopa County's Election Day failures:

>https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1589987833846333440?s=61&t=58lkFhHfeARA9ESPtWAw2w

It happened all over Maricopa County? That's got to be the ink and paper
choices as affected by how well the ink had dried before being fed into
the scanner. It would be nice to know if the same ballots fed through
different scanners at the main county processing facility were readable
hours or days later which would prove that use of the wrong ink or paper
not absorbing the ink quickly enough was the culprit.

Sigh

There's nothing new about paper science nor how ink that's not fully
dried interacts with scanning technology. Expertise in this area goes
back decades.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Looks like it wouldn't have mattered if the Post Office stole your ballot
>> or not.
>
>> "Nothing's working" in Arizona.
>
>> https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1590023178755407872?s=61&t=58lkFhHfeARA9ESPtWAw2w
>
>> We can land a robot on a 30,000 mph comet, but counting pieces of paper are
>> apparently beyond us in 2022.
>
> I miss hanging chads, which turned out to be more of an issue because
> Florida had printed ballots on the wrong paper stock, ignoring the
> humidity of ocean air along the Atlantic seaboard and not because of
> lack of dexterity holding the punches.
>
> I've been an election judge in various jurisdictions off and on going
> back to the 1980s. In a suburban precinct, we had a choice of systems.
> Mail-in voting is done on paper ballots. At the polling site on election
> day, voters can use paper ballots or a touch screen marking system that
> prints a paper ballot. At early voting site, it's all touch-screen
> voting given the difficulty of maintaining an inventory of paper ballots
> from hundreds of precincts, many of which had multiple ballot styles
> anyway.
>
> We had to instruct voters to mark paper ballots with Sharpies. Sharpies
> are designed to soak the ink into the paper. From the voter's
> perspective, they see bleed through. Now, the bleed through is
> anticipated and the ovals are set up so they don't line up on the
> two-sided paper ballot. But becuse it's a Sharpie, it's real easy to
> create extraneous marks and ballots with extraneous marks too close to
> the oval are rejected. We had an ususually high number of spoiled
> ballots due to extraneous marks. Sure, a few voters spoiled their
> ballots due to mismarking their choices.
>
> From the scanner's perspective, the fact that the ink soaks into the
> paper completely prior to scanning is a real advantage. Typical ink from
> a ball-point pen, for instance, is still giving off fumes and will
> create a haze on the scanner lens. Not an issue with mail-in ballots, I
> suppose, given that there's a couple of days between marking the ballot
> and when it's received at the mail-in vote processing facility and then
> in my state, the mail-in ballots aren't even read till after the polls
> close on election night.
>
> But with the use of a ball-point pen, the voter is far less likely to
> create an extraneous mark that will cause the ballot to be rejected than
> with a Sharpie.
>
> I suspect that what happened at this polling site, the judges were
> allowing voters to mark their ballots with ball-point pens instead of
> physically handing them Sharpies, so the scanner lens got clogged.

Wasn't just that site. Apparently 40% of Maricopa's tabulating machines
went tits-up yesterday.

BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>>>Looks like it wouldn't have mattered if the Post Office stole your ballot
>>>or not.

>>>"Nothing's working" in Arizona.

>>>https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1590023178755407872?s=61&t=58lkFhHfeARA9ESPtWAw2w

>>>We can land a robot on a 30,000 mph comet, but counting pieces of paper are
>>>apparently beyond us in 2022.

>>I miss hanging chads, which turned out to be more of an issue because
>>Florida had printed ballots on the wrong paper stock, ignoring the
>>humidity of ocean air along the Atlantic seaboard and not because of
>>lack of dexterity holding the punches.

>>I've been an election judge in various jurisdictions off and on going
>>back to the 1980s. In a suburban precinct, we had a choice of systems.
>>Mail-in voting is done on paper ballots. At the polling site on election
>>day, voters can use paper ballots or a touch screen marking system that
>>prints a paper ballot. At early voting site, it's all touch-screen
>>voting given the difficulty of maintaining an inventory of paper ballots
>>from hundreds of precincts, many of which had multiple ballot styles
>>anyway.

>>We had to instruct voters to mark paper ballots with Sharpies. Sharpies
>>are designed to soak the ink into the paper. From the voter's
>>perspective, they see bleed through. Now, the bleed through is
>>anticipated and the ovals are set up so they don't line up on the
>>two-sided paper ballot. But becuse it's a Sharpie, it's real easy to
>>create extraneous marks and ballots with extraneous marks too close to
>>the oval are rejected. We had an ususually high number of spoiled
>>ballots due to extraneous marks. Sure, a few voters spoiled their
>>ballots due to mismarking their choices.

>>From the scanner's perspective, the fact that the ink soaks into the
>>paper completely prior to scanning is a real advantage. Typical ink from
>>a ball-point pen, for instance, is still giving off fumes and will
>>create a haze on the scanner lens. Not an issue with mail-in ballots, I
>>suppose, given that there's a couple of days between marking the ballot
>>and when it's received at the mail-in vote processing facility and then
>>in my state, the mail-in ballots aren't even read till after the polls
>>close on election night.

>>But with the use of a ball-point pen, the voter is far less likely to
>>create an extraneous mark that will cause the ballot to be rejected than
>>with a Sharpie.

>>I suspect that what happened at this polling site, the judges were
>>allowing voters to mark their ballots with ball-point pens instead of
>>physically handing them Sharpies, so the scanner lens got clogged.

>Wasn't just that site. Apparently 40% of Maricopa's tabulating machines
>went tits-up yesterday.

I'm sure it's going to turn out to be failure to use pens like Sharpies
with ink that has soaked well into the paper quickly enough to avoid
giving off chemical fumes that clog the scanner lenses.

I'm also sure that once the ink has completely dried those ballots will
be readable on different scanners.

See my followup to your subsequent followup. There is nothing unknown
about the technology of paper and ink and what is required for scanners
to work properly. County officials and their vendors ignored the obvious.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Looks like it wouldn't have mattered if the Post Office stole your ballot
>> or not.
>
>> "Nothing's working" in Arizona.
>
>> https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1590023178755407872?s=61&t=58lkFhHfeARA9ESPtWAw2w
>
>> We can land a robot on a 30,000 mph comet, but counting pieces of paper are
>> apparently beyond us in 2022.
>
> I miss hanging chads, which turned out to be more of an issue because
> Florida had printed ballots on the wrong paper stock, ignoring the
> humidity of ocean air along the Atlantic seaboard and not because of
> lack of dexterity holding the punches.
>
> I've been an election judge in various jurisdictions off and on going
> back to the 1980s. In a suburban precinct, we had a choice of systems.
> Mail-in voting is done on paper ballots. At the polling site on election
> day, voters can use paper ballots or a touch screen marking system that
> prints a paper ballot.

The liar from NBC fake news who was laughing at Carrie lake said that it
was actually the printer that was broken not the tabulator and that was all
“Disinformation” made up by the GOP. Yeah, this is a reputable news
organization.

I’m not really sure how he differentiates one part of the system from the
other or why printers would break down across the state and not tabulators.
Nor do I have any idea why this would slow down the voting. But thank you
for at least explaining that there is a printer in the system somewhere.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Looks like it wouldn't have mattered if the Post Office stole your ballot
>>> or not.
>>
>>> "Nothing's working" in Arizona.
>>
>>> https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1590023178755407872?s=61&t=58lkFhHfeARA9ESPtWAw2w
>>
>>> We can land a robot on a 30,000 mph comet, but counting pieces of paper are
>>> apparently beyond us in 2022.
>>
>> I miss hanging chads, which turned out to be more of an issue because
>> Florida had printed ballots on the wrong paper stock, ignoring the
>> humidity of ocean air along the Atlantic seaboard and not because of
>> lack of dexterity holding the punches.
>>
>> I've been an election judge in various jurisdictions off and on going
>> back to the 1980s. In a suburban precinct, we had a choice of systems.
>> Mail-in voting is done on paper ballots. At the polling site on election
>> day, voters can use paper ballots or a touch screen marking system that
>> prints a paper ballot. At early voting site, it's all touch-screen
>> voting given the difficulty of maintaining an inventory of paper ballots
>> from hundreds of precincts, many of which had multiple ballot styles
>> anyway.
>>
>> We had to instruct voters to mark paper ballots with Sharpies. Sharpies
>> are designed to soak the ink into the paper. From the voter's
>> perspective, they see bleed through. Now, the bleed through is
>> anticipated and the ovals are set up so they don't line up on the
>> two-sided paper ballot. But becuse it's a Sharpie, it's real easy to
>> create extraneous marks and ballots with extraneous marks too close to
>> the oval are rejected. We had an ususually high number of spoiled
>> ballots due to extraneous marks. Sure, a few voters spoiled their
>> ballots due to mismarking their choices.
>>
>> From the scanner's perspective, the fact that the ink soaks into the
>> paper completely prior to scanning is a real advantage. Typical ink from
>> a ball-point pen, for instance, is still giving off fumes and will
>> create a haze on the scanner lens. Not an issue with mail-in ballots, I
>> suppose, given that there's a couple of days between marking the ballot
>> and when it's received at the mail-in vote processing facility and then
>> in my state, the mail-in ballots aren't even read till after the polls
>> close on election night.
>>
>> But with the use of a ball-point pen, the voter is far less likely to
>> create an extraneous mark that will cause the ballot to be rejected than
>> with a Sharpie.
>>
>> I suspect that what happened at this polling site, the judges were
>> allowing voters to mark their ballots with ball-point pens instead of
>> physically handing them Sharpies, so the scanner lens got clogged.
>
> Wasn't just that site. Apparently 40% of Maricopa's tabulating machines
> went tits-up yesterday.
>

NBC fake news says that’s a lie made up by the GOP despite the fact that we
saw the guys in charge of the voting sites saying it. And you wonder why we
don’t trust elections and why Carrie Lake may or may not have said (they
clearly retracted the claims) that she wouldn’t have certified Biden
because the election process here can’t be trusted.

And again let’s note that her opponent for governor, who apparently won,
and is definitely a complete nutcase, is the current secretary of state and
in charge of all those machines that went tits up.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> Looks like it wouldn't have mattered if the Post Office stole your ballot
>>>> or not.
>
>>>> "Nothing's working" in Arizona.
>
>>>> https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1590023178755407872?s=61&t=58lkFhHfeARA9ESPtWAw2w
>
>>>> We can land a robot on a 30,000 mph comet, but counting pieces of paper are
>>>> apparently beyond us in 2022.
>
>>> I miss hanging chads, which turned out to be more of an issue because
>>> Florida had printed ballots on the wrong paper stock, ignoring the
>>> humidity of ocean air along the Atlantic seaboard and not because of
>>> lack of dexterity holding the punches.
>
>>> I've been an election judge in various jurisdictions off and on going
>>> back to the 1980s. In a suburban precinct, we had a choice of systems.
>>> Mail-in voting is done on paper ballots. At the polling site on election
>>> day, voters can use paper ballots or a touch screen marking system that
>>> prints a paper ballot. At early voting site, it's all touch-screen
>>> voting given the difficulty of maintaining an inventory of paper ballots
>>> from hundreds of precincts, many of which had multiple ballot styles
>>> anyway.
>
>>> We had to instruct voters to mark paper ballots with Sharpies. Sharpies
>>> are designed to soak the ink into the paper. From the voter's
>>> perspective, they see bleed through. Now, the bleed through is
>>> anticipated and the ovals are set up so they don't line up on the
>>> two-sided paper ballot. But becuse it's a Sharpie, it's real easy to
>>> create extraneous marks and ballots with extraneous marks too close to
>>> the oval are rejected. We had an ususually high number of spoiled
>>> ballots due to extraneous marks. Sure, a few voters spoiled their
>>> ballots due to mismarking their choices.
>
>>> From the scanner's perspective, the fact that the ink soaks into the
>>> paper completely prior to scanning is a real advantage. Typical ink from
>>> a ball-point pen, for instance, is still giving off fumes and will
>>> create a haze on the scanner lens. Not an issue with mail-in ballots, I
>>> suppose, given that there's a couple of days between marking the ballot
>>> and when it's received at the mail-in vote processing facility and then
>>> in my state, the mail-in ballots aren't even read till after the polls
>>> close on election night.
>
>>> But with the use of a ball-point pen, the voter is far less likely to
>>> create an extraneous mark that will cause the ballot to be rejected than
>>> with a Sharpie.
>
>>> I suspect that what happened at this polling site, the judges were
>>> allowing voters to mark their ballots with ball-point pens instead of
>>> physically handing them Sharpies, so the scanner lens got clogged.
>
>> Wasn't just that site. Apparently 40% of Maricopa's tabulating machines
>> went tits-up yesterday.
>
> I'm sure it's going to turn out to be failure to use pens like Sharpies
> with ink that has soaked well into the paper quickly enough to avoid
> giving off chemical fumes that clog the scanner lenses.
>
> I'm also sure that once the ink has completely dried those ballots will
> be readable on different scanners.
>
> See my followup to your subsequent followup. There is nothing unknown
> about the technology of paper and ink and what is required for scanners
> to work properly. County officials and their vendors ignored the obvious.
>

I think it’s going to be a worse problem with that. The guy they
interviewed live at the election site said they had two tabulators and one
didn’t work at all and the other was giving 75% incorrect results. I have
no idea how the hell they judge that.

The other person they interviewed at another election site, she said
“nothings working in Arizona“

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 11/9/2022 11:42 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Looks like it wouldn't have mattered if the Post Office stole your ballot
>>>>> or not.
>>
>>>>> "Nothing's working" in Arizona.
>>
>>>>> https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1590023178755407872?s=61&t=58lkFhHfeARA9ESPtWAw2w
>>
>>>>> We can land a robot on a 30,000 mph comet, but counting pieces of paper are
>>>>> apparently beyond us in 2022.
>>
>>>> I miss hanging chads, which turned out to be more of an issue because
>>>> Florida had printed ballots on the wrong paper stock, ignoring the
>>>> humidity of ocean air along the Atlantic seaboard and not because of
>>>> lack of dexterity holding the punches.
>>
>>>> I've been an election judge in various jurisdictions off and on going
>>>> back to the 1980s. In a suburban precinct, we had a choice of systems.
>>>> Mail-in voting is done on paper ballots. At the polling site on election
>>>> day, voters can use paper ballots or a touch screen marking system that
>>>> prints a paper ballot. At early voting site, it's all touch-screen
>>>> voting given the difficulty of maintaining an inventory of paper ballots
>>>> from hundreds of precincts, many of which had multiple ballot styles
>>>> anyway.
>>
>>>> We had to instruct voters to mark paper ballots with Sharpies. Sharpies
>>>> are designed to soak the ink into the paper. From the voter's
>>>> perspective, they see bleed through. Now, the bleed through is
>>>> anticipated and the ovals are set up so they don't line up on the
>>>> two-sided paper ballot. But becuse it's a Sharpie, it's real easy to
>>>> create extraneous marks and ballots with extraneous marks too close to
>>>> the oval are rejected. We had an ususually high number of spoiled
>>>> ballots due to extraneous marks. Sure, a few voters spoiled their
>>>> ballots due to mismarking their choices.
>>
>>>> From the scanner's perspective, the fact that the ink soaks into the
>>>> paper completely prior to scanning is a real advantage. Typical ink from
>>>> a ball-point pen, for instance, is still giving off fumes and will
>>>> create a haze on the scanner lens. Not an issue with mail-in ballots, I
>>>> suppose, given that there's a couple of days between marking the ballot
>>>> and when it's received at the mail-in vote processing facility and then
>>>> in my state, the mail-in ballots aren't even read till after the polls
>>>> close on election night.
>>
>>>> But with the use of a ball-point pen, the voter is far less likely to
>>>> create an extraneous mark that will cause the ballot to be rejected than
>>>> with a Sharpie.
>>
>>>> I suspect that what happened at this polling site, the judges were
>>>> allowing voters to mark their ballots with ball-point pens instead of
>>>> physically handing them Sharpies, so the scanner lens got clogged.
>>
>>> Wasn't just that site. Apparently 40% of Maricopa's tabulating machines
>>> went tits-up yesterday.
>>
>> I'm sure it's going to turn out to be failure to use pens like Sharpies
>> with ink that has soaked well into the paper quickly enough to avoid
>> giving off chemical fumes that clog the scanner lenses.
>>
>> I'm also sure that once the ink has completely dried those ballots will
>> be readable on different scanners.
>>
>> See my followup to your subsequent followup. There is nothing unknown
>> about the technology of paper and ink and what is required for scanners
>> to work properly. County officials and their vendors ignored the obvious.
>>
>
> I think it’s going to be a worse problem with that. The guy they
> interviewed live at the election site said they had two tabulators and one
> didn’t work at all and the other was giving 75% incorrect results. I have
> no idea how the hell they judge that.
>
> The other person they interviewed at another election site, she said
> “nothings working in Arizona“
>
I saw that video. The election worker said that 25% of the ballots fed
into the second tabulator were being rejected as errors, so those were
being hand checked. Not "75% incorrect results".

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
> On 11/9/2022 11:42 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Looks like it wouldn't have mattered if the Post Office stole your ballot
>>>>>> or not.
>>>
>>>>>> "Nothing's working" in Arizona.
>>>
>>>>>> https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1590023178755407872?s=61&t=58lkFhHfeARA9ESPtWAw2w
>>>
>>>>>> We can land a robot on a 30,000 mph comet, but counting pieces of paper are
>>>>>> apparently beyond us in 2022.
>>>
>>>>> I miss hanging chads, which turned out to be more of an issue because
>>>>> Florida had printed ballots on the wrong paper stock, ignoring the
>>>>> humidity of ocean air along the Atlantic seaboard and not because of
>>>>> lack of dexterity holding the punches.
>>>
>>>>> I've been an election judge in various jurisdictions off and on going
>>>>> back to the 1980s. In a suburban precinct, we had a choice of systems.
>>>>> Mail-in voting is done on paper ballots. At the polling site on election
>>>>> day, voters can use paper ballots or a touch screen marking system that
>>>>> prints a paper ballot. At early voting site, it's all touch-screen
>>>>> voting given the difficulty of maintaining an inventory of paper ballots
>>>>> from hundreds of precincts, many of which had multiple ballot styles
>>>>> anyway.
>>>
>>>>> We had to instruct voters to mark paper ballots with Sharpies. Sharpies
>>>>> are designed to soak the ink into the paper. From the voter's
>>>>> perspective, they see bleed through. Now, the bleed through is
>>>>> anticipated and the ovals are set up so they don't line up on the
>>>>> two-sided paper ballot. But becuse it's a Sharpie, it's real easy to
>>>>> create extraneous marks and ballots with extraneous marks too close to
>>>>> the oval are rejected. We had an ususually high number of spoiled
>>>>> ballots due to extraneous marks. Sure, a few voters spoiled their
>>>>> ballots due to mismarking their choices.
>>>
>>>>> From the scanner's perspective, the fact that the ink soaks into the
>>>>> paper completely prior to scanning is a real advantage. Typical ink from
>>>>> a ball-point pen, for instance, is still giving off fumes and will
>>>>> create a haze on the scanner lens. Not an issue with mail-in ballots, I
>>>>> suppose, given that there's a couple of days between marking the ballot
>>>>> and when it's received at the mail-in vote processing facility and then
>>>>> in my state, the mail-in ballots aren't even read till after the polls
>>>>> close on election night.
>>>
>>>>> But with the use of a ball-point pen, the voter is far less likely to
>>>>> create an extraneous mark that will cause the ballot to be rejected than
>>>>> with a Sharpie.
>>>
>>>>> I suspect that what happened at this polling site, the judges were
>>>>> allowing voters to mark their ballots with ball-point pens instead of
>>>>> physically handing them Sharpies, so the scanner lens got clogged.
>>>
>>>> Wasn't just that site. Apparently 40% of Maricopa's tabulating machines
>>>> went tits-up yesterday.
>>>
>>> I'm sure it's going to turn out to be failure to use pens like Sharpies
>>> with ink that has soaked well into the paper quickly enough to avoid
>>> giving off chemical fumes that clog the scanner lenses.
>>>
>>> I'm also sure that once the ink has completely dried those ballots will
>>> be readable on different scanners.
>>>
>>> See my followup to your subsequent followup. There is nothing unknown
>>> about the technology of paper and ink and what is required for scanners
>>> to work properly. County officials and their vendors ignored the obvious.
>>>
>>
>> I think it’s going to be a worse problem with that. The guy they
>> interviewed live at the election site said they had two tabulators and one
>> didn’t work at all and the other was giving 75% incorrect results. I have
>> no idea how the hell they judge that.
>>
>> The other person they interviewed at another election site, she said
>> “nothings working in Arizona“
>>
> I saw that video. The election worker said that 25% of the ballots fed
> into the second tabulator were being rejected as errors, so those were
> being hand checked. Not "75% incorrect results".
>

OK, 75% right, not wrong.

Still, how the hell does anybody know that?

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 11/9/2022 2:26 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 11/9/2022 11:42 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Looks like it wouldn't have mattered if the Post Office stole your ballot
>>>>>>> or not.
>>>>
>>>>>>> "Nothing's working" in Arizona.
>>>>
>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1590023178755407872?s=61&t=58lkFhHfeARA9ESPtWAw2w
>>>>
>>>>>>> We can land a robot on a 30,000 mph comet, but counting pieces of paper are
>>>>>>> apparently beyond us in 2022.
>>>>
>>>>>> I miss hanging chads, which turned out to be more of an issue because
>>>>>> Florida had printed ballots on the wrong paper stock, ignoring the
>>>>>> humidity of ocean air along the Atlantic seaboard and not because of
>>>>>> lack of dexterity holding the punches.
>>>>
>>>>>> I've been an election judge in various jurisdictions off and on going
>>>>>> back to the 1980s. In a suburban precinct, we had a choice of systems.
>>>>>> Mail-in voting is done on paper ballots. At the polling site on election
>>>>>> day, voters can use paper ballots or a touch screen marking system that
>>>>>> prints a paper ballot. At early voting site, it's all touch-screen
>>>>>> voting given the difficulty of maintaining an inventory of paper ballots
>>>>>> from hundreds of precincts, many of which had multiple ballot styles
>>>>>> anyway.
>>>>
>>>>>> We had to instruct voters to mark paper ballots with Sharpies. Sharpies
>>>>>> are designed to soak the ink into the paper. From the voter's
>>>>>> perspective, they see bleed through. Now, the bleed through is
>>>>>> anticipated and the ovals are set up so they don't line up on the
>>>>>> two-sided paper ballot. But becuse it's a Sharpie, it's real easy to
>>>>>> create extraneous marks and ballots with extraneous marks too close to
>>>>>> the oval are rejected. We had an ususually high number of spoiled
>>>>>> ballots due to extraneous marks. Sure, a few voters spoiled their
>>>>>> ballots due to mismarking their choices.
>>>>
>>>>>> From the scanner's perspective, the fact that the ink soaks into the
>>>>>> paper completely prior to scanning is a real advantage. Typical ink from
>>>>>> a ball-point pen, for instance, is still giving off fumes and will
>>>>>> create a haze on the scanner lens. Not an issue with mail-in ballots, I
>>>>>> suppose, given that there's a couple of days between marking the ballot
>>>>>> and when it's received at the mail-in vote processing facility and then
>>>>>> in my state, the mail-in ballots aren't even read till after the polls
>>>>>> close on election night.
>>>>
>>>>>> But with the use of a ball-point pen, the voter is far less likely to
>>>>>> create an extraneous mark that will cause the ballot to be rejected than
>>>>>> with a Sharpie.
>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect that what happened at this polling site, the judges were
>>>>>> allowing voters to mark their ballots with ball-point pens instead of
>>>>>> physically handing them Sharpies, so the scanner lens got clogged.
>>>>
>>>>> Wasn't just that site. Apparently 40% of Maricopa's tabulating machines
>>>>> went tits-up yesterday.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure it's going to turn out to be failure to use pens like Sharpies
>>>> with ink that has soaked well into the paper quickly enough to avoid
>>>> giving off chemical fumes that clog the scanner lenses.
>>>>
>>>> I'm also sure that once the ink has completely dried those ballots will
>>>> be readable on different scanners.
>>>>
>>>> See my followup to your subsequent followup. There is nothing unknown
>>>> about the technology of paper and ink and what is required for scanners
>>>> to work properly. County officials and their vendors ignored the obvious.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think it’s going to be a worse problem with that. The guy they
>>> interviewed live at the election site said they had two tabulators and one
>>> didn’t work at all and the other was giving 75% incorrect results. I have
>>> no idea how the hell they judge that.
>>>
>>> The other person they interviewed at another election site, she said
>>> “nothings working in Arizona“
>>>
>> I saw that video. The election worker said that 25% of the ballots fed
>> into the second tabulator were being rejected as errors, so those were
>> being hand checked. Not "75% incorrect results".
>>
>
> OK, 75% right, not wrong.
>
> Still, how the hell does anybody know that?
>
He didn't say the tabulators were giving "incorrect results". He was
saying that the first wasn't working and the second couldn't read 25% of
the ballots. Any "incorrect results" claims were delusional propaganda
trying to justify throwing out the election results.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>>>Looks like it wouldn't have mattered if the Post Office stole your ballot
>>>or not.

>>>"Nothing's working" in Arizona.

>>>https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1590023178755407872?s=61&t=58lkFhHfeARA9ESPtWAw2w

>>>We can land a robot on a 30,000 mph comet, but counting pieces of paper are
>>>apparently beyond us in 2022.

>>I miss hanging chads, which turned out to be more of an issue because
>>Florida had printed ballots on the wrong paper stock, ignoring the
>>humidity of ocean air along the Atlantic seaboard and not because of
>>lack of dexterity holding the punches.

>>I've been an election judge in various jurisdictions off and on going
>>back to the 1980s. In a suburban precinct, we had a choice of systems.
>>Mail-in voting is done on paper ballots. At the polling site on election
>>day, voters can use paper ballots or a touch screen marking system that
>>prints a paper ballot.

>The liar from NBC fake news who was laughing at Carrie lake said that it
>was actually the printer that was broken not the tabulator and that was all
>"Disinformation" made up by the GOP. Yeah, this is a reputable news
>organization.

Broken printer doesn't sound right to me.

My guess is that the scanners weren't broken either. My guess is it's
the use of the wrong ink not fully soaking into the paper prior to
scanning so the scanning lens gets clogged with chemical solvents in the
ink.

>I'm not really sure how he differentiates one part of the system from the
>other or why printers would break down across the state and not tabulators.
>Nor do I have any idea why this would slow down the voting. But thank you
>for at least explaining that there is a printer in the system somewhere.

I really have no idea if Maricopa county uses a similar system to ours.

In the system we used till last year, the electronic machines didn't
create a ballot at all, but recorded votes on a memory card and logged
the voter's choice on paper tape. If there were a contested election,
somebody had to review the massive quantities of tape.

What we have now -- electronic voting touch screens outputting the
voter's actual ballot as marked to be fed into the scanner -- is
superior. We didn't have ballots rejected due to printer problems, just
the weirdness with my initials.

I don't buy what your NBC affiliate reported.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> Looks like it wouldn't have mattered if the Post Office stole your ballot
>>>> or not.
>
>>>> "Nothing's working" in Arizona.
>
>>>> https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1590023178755407872?s=61&t=58lkFhHfeARA9ESPtWAw2w
>
>>>> We can land a robot on a 30,000 mph comet, but counting pieces of paper are
>>>> apparently beyond us in 2022.
>
>>> I miss hanging chads, which turned out to be more of an issue because
>>> Florida had printed ballots on the wrong paper stock, ignoring the
>>> humidity of ocean air along the Atlantic seaboard and not because of
>>> lack of dexterity holding the punches.
>
>>> I've been an election judge in various jurisdictions off and on going
>>> back to the 1980s. In a suburban precinct, we had a choice of systems.
>>> Mail-in voting is done on paper ballots. At the polling site on election
>>> day, voters can use paper ballots or a touch screen marking system that
>>> prints a paper ballot.
>
>> The liar from NBC fake news who was laughing at Carrie lake said that it
>> was actually the printer that was broken not the tabulator and that was all
>> "Disinformation" made up by the GOP. Yeah, this is a reputable news
>> organization.
>
> Broken printer doesn't sound right to me.
>
> My guess is that the scanners weren't broken either. My guess is it's
> the use of the wrong ink not fully soaking into the paper prior to
> scanning so the scanning lens gets clogged with chemical solvents in the
> ink.
>
>> I'm not really sure how he differentiates one part of the system from the
>> other or why printers would break down across the state and not tabulators.
>> Nor do I have any idea why this would slow down the voting. But thank you
>> for at least explaining that there is a printer in the system somewhere.
>
> I really have no idea if Maricopa county uses a similar system to ours.
>
> In the system we used till last year, the electronic machines didn't
> create a ballot at all, but recorded votes on a memory card and logged
> the voter's choice on paper tape. If there were a contested election,
> somebody had to review the massive quantities of tape.
>
> What we have now -- electronic voting touch screens outputting the
> voter's actual ballot as marked to be fed into the scanner -- is
> superior. We didn't have ballots rejected due to printer problems, just
> the weirdness with my initials.
>
> I don't buy what your NBC affiliate reported.
>

I have no doubt whatsoever he was lying. Thanks for the input.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 11/9/22 12:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Looks like it wouldn't have mattered if the Post Office stole your ballot
>>> or not.
>>
>>> "Nothing's working" in Arizona.
>>
>>> https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1590023178755407872?s=61&t=58lkFhHfeARA9ESPtWAw2w
>>
>>> We can land a robot on a 30,000 mph comet, but counting pieces of paper are
>>> apparently beyond us in 2022.
>>
>> I miss hanging chads, which turned out to be more of an issue because
>> Florida had printed ballots on the wrong paper stock, ignoring the
>> humidity of ocean air along the Atlantic seaboard and not because of
>> lack of dexterity holding the punches.
>>
>> I've been an election judge in various jurisdictions off and on going
>> back to the 1980s. In a suburban precinct, we had a choice of systems.
>> Mail-in voting is done on paper ballots. At the polling site on election
>> day, voters can use paper ballots or a touch screen marking system that
>> prints a paper ballot. At early voting site, it's all touch-screen
>> voting given the difficulty of maintaining an inventory of paper ballots
>> from hundreds of precincts, many of which had multiple ballot styles
>> anyway.
>>
>> We had to instruct voters to mark paper ballots with Sharpies. Sharpies
>> are designed to soak the ink into the paper. From the voter's
>> perspective, they see bleed through. Now, the bleed through is
>> anticipated and the ovals are set up so they don't line up on the
>> two-sided paper ballot. But becuse it's a Sharpie, it's real easy to
>> create extraneous marks and ballots with extraneous marks too close to
>> the oval are rejected. We had an ususually high number of spoiled
>> ballots due to extraneous marks. Sure, a few voters spoiled their
>> ballots due to mismarking their choices.
>>
>> From the scanner's perspective, the fact that the ink soaks into the
>> paper completely prior to scanning is a real advantage. Typical ink from
>> a ball-point pen, for instance, is still giving off fumes and will
>> create a haze on the scanner lens. Not an issue with mail-in ballots, I
>> suppose, given that there's a couple of days between marking the ballot
>> and when it's received at the mail-in vote processing facility and then
>> in my state, the mail-in ballots aren't even read till after the polls
>> close on election night.
>>
>> But with the use of a ball-point pen, the voter is far less likely to
>> create an extraneous mark that will cause the ballot to be rejected than
>> with a Sharpie.
>>
>> I suspect that what happened at this polling site, the judges were
>> allowing voters to mark their ballots with ball-point pens instead of
>> physically handing them Sharpies, so the scanner lens got clogged.
>
> Wasn't just that site. Apparently 40% of Maricopa's tabulating machines
> went tits-up yesterday.

40% No shit? Did you get that from the Oath Keepers e-mail blast then?