4 ms·

The observers are not there to make sure the ballot scanners are working. They're there to audit the portion of the process which can never ever be re-audited:

The observers are not there to make sure the ballot scanners are working. They're there to audit the portion of the process which can never ever be re-audited: the provenance of secret ballots. Of course if you re-count the same ballots over again you'll come up with something roughly the same. This "hand recount had identical* results" mantra to reinforce the core idea "the election has been independently verified" may work on the general public but it shouldn't work on HN. There's no need to believe the suitcases were smuggled in, although you yourself appear to have doubts in that direction. For example, they could be perfectly authentic ballots with some flawed provenance. A priori this seems the most plausible explanation. > rather than simply having left. Leaving a semi-public place such as an arena or an office building for the night has the result of not being permitted back in until the next public opening. Your arguments have turned to disingenuity and open trolling.

javagram 6y ago
> The observers are not there to make sure the ballot scanners are working. They're there to audit the portion of the process which can never ever be re-audited: the provenance of secret ballots But the provenance is on camera. Those ballots were right there with the rest of them. What exactly is the “auditing” you think the observers would have done that the Republican secretary of state’s staffer didn’t do?
wlesieutre 6y ago
If that’s the issue with the video, then why does everyone’s main concern about it seem to be that they came from a box under a table? There’s certainly an implication that these were fake ballots that had been snuck in surreptitiously, given that its origin was clearly shown in the same video but had been cut out. Maybe I’m reading too much into it. But then why is it called “SuitcaseGate”? Does “StandardContainerOfAbsenteeBallotsGate” not have the same deliberately made implication? Beyond that, I don’t disagree that poll observers are important. But the ballots at this point had already been removed from both of their envelopes and stacked for scanning, while the observers were all present. If there was a flawed provenance to them, the observers observed it. At the point where those ballots were taken out of the box and scanned (again, all on camera) they’re nothing but pieces of paper with some bubbles filled in. There’s no name. There’s no date. There’s no voter address. There’s no signature. Just ballots. Any questions of their provenance could only have been addressed earlier when they were taken out of their envelopes under the supervision of the election observers. So with no observers present, they were pulled back out of the boxes and fed through the scanner. What did the observers need to observe that wasn’t captured on the surveillance tape? What part of this unobserved scanning process can’t be confirmed by a recount of the same ballots? > Leaving a semi-public place such as an arena or an office building for the night has the result of not being permitted back in until the next public opening. Your arguments have turned to disingenuity and open trolling. The Mitchell Harrison affidavit linked by another commenter specifically explains that he and Trevin McKoy came back that night and were escorted into the building. Counting had stopped before they arrived, but the point stands you’re bullshitting about it “having the result of not being permitted back in until the next public opening.”
- unanswered 6y ago
  Okay, so they weren't permitted in until counting had been completed. They were told to leave because counting was complete, then when they came back (due to a tip, not an invitation) they were delayed at the door until all activities they wished to observe had ceased. This isn't getting any better! Your whole argument boils down to "there's no need for observers because I trust the process". The whole point of observers is that it shouldn't be necessary to just trust the process. Right now what you and the media and HN are telling me, on pain of cancellation, is that 100% of the essentially self-selected people involved in the election are honest. That all of the dishonest people decided it was too much bother to do a day's work to influence the outcome of the election, because The Process is infallible. I guess I should be thankful that all the dishonest people didn't bother voting either, right?
  - wlesieutre 6y ago
    > Okay, so they weren't permitted in until counting had been completed. When they arrived at the front door they were told counting had already been completed. Not sure whether you misread that or are suggesting the security person was lying about what was happening inside. > They were told to leave because counting was complete, They were told counting was complete, they were not told to leave, and they do not claim they were told to leave. But I can't blame them for making that assumption. > then when they came back (due to a tip, not an invitation) Agree with you here, when the secretary of state's office called and told them to resume counting, some effort should have been made to get the observers back in. But the only work done was scanning of ballots that had already been cleared, and it was all on camera, and all of the work they did while unobserved can be directly confirmed by recounts. So even though this happened, I don't see how it's evidence that the election was rigged. > they were delayed at the door until all activities they wished to observe had ceased. Having arrived at the front door after counting was finished, the one guard at the door stayed at the door instead of leaving his post, and he radioed someone else. The second person escorted them in, where they confirmed that yes, counting had ceased as they were told. Is there a couple minute window in there where you could say "the second person took too long and was stalling to cover something?" Sure, allow me to flex my creative writing muscles to concoct a reverse-heist in which this could actually matter and have affected the election: 1) The (democratic leaning) Fulton County election officials shut down counting for the night and allowed observers to leave. 2) Observers having been cleared, they colluded with the (republican) secretary of state's office to arrange a cover to resume scanning ballots. 3) They then used the unobserved counting session as an excuse to unseal the boxes under the table of verified but uncounted ballots. 4) Having these containers of ballots open, they hacked the security cameras to cover their activities. 5) The footage we've seen was actually recorded in a replica of the ballot counting room that they built in a warehouse last October, and the people seen counting ballots on it are all actors. 6) With the cameras hijacked and no observers present, they introduce and count fake ballots that did not actually come from the previously observed and sealed boxes. 7) Steal election! I don't have the full quality video recording or the forensic knowledge to analyze it, but as conspiracy theories go I don't find my scenario particularly compelling. > This isn't getting any better! If you say so.

javagram 6y ago

> The observers are not there to make sure the ballot scanners are working. They're there to audit the portion of the process which can never ever be re-audited: the provenance of secret ballots But the provenance is on camera. Those ballots were right there with the rest of them. What exactly is the “auditing” you think the observers would have done that the Republican secretary of state’s staffer didn’t do?

wlesieutre 6y ago

If that’s the issue with the video, then why does everyone’s main concern about it seem to be that they came from a box under a table? There’s certainly an implication that these were fake ballots that had been snuck in surreptitiously, given that its origin was clearly shown in the same video but had been cut out. Maybe I’m reading too much into it. But then why is it called “SuitcaseGate”? Does “StandardContainerOfAbsenteeBallotsGate” not have the same deliberately made implication? Beyond that, I don’t disagree that poll observers are important. But the ballots at this point had already been removed from both of their envelopes and stacked for scanning, while the observers were all present. If there was a flawed provenance to them, the observers observed it. At the point where those ballots were taken out of the box and scanned (again, all on camera) they’re nothing but pieces of paper with some bubbles filled in. There’s no name. There’s no date. There’s no voter address. There’s no signature. Just ballots. Any questions of their provenance could only have been addressed earlier when they were taken out of their envelopes under the supervision of the election observers. So with no observers present, they were pulled back out of the boxes and fed through the scanner. What did the observers need to observe that wasn’t captured on the surveillance tape? What part of this unobserved scanning process can’t be confirmed by a recount of the same ballots? > Leaving a semi-public place such as an arena or an office building for the night has the result of not being permitted back in until the next public opening. Your arguments have turned to disingenuity and open trolling. The Mitchell Harrison affidavit linked by another commenter specifically explains that he and Trevin McKoy came back that night and were escorted into the building. Counting had stopped before they arrived, but the point stands you’re bullshitting about it “having the result of not being permitted back in until the next public opening.”

unanswered 6y ago
Okay, so they weren't permitted in until counting had been completed. They were told to leave because counting was complete, then when they came back (due to a tip, not an invitation) they were delayed at the door until all activities they wished to observe had ceased. This isn't getting any better! Your whole argument boils down to "there's no need for observers because I trust the process". The whole point of observers is that it shouldn't be necessary to just trust the process. Right now what you and the media and HN are telling me, on pain of cancellation, is that 100% of the essentially self-selected people involved in the election are honest. That all of the dishonest people decided it was too much bother to do a day's work to influence the outcome of the election, because The Process is infallible. I guess I should be thankful that all the dishonest people didn't bother voting either, right?
- wlesieutre 6y ago
  > Okay, so they weren't permitted in until counting had been completed. When they arrived at the front door they were told counting had already been completed. Not sure whether you misread that or are suggesting the security person was lying about what was happening inside. > They were told to leave because counting was complete, They were told counting was complete, they were not told to leave, and they do not claim they were told to leave. But I can't blame them for making that assumption. > then when they came back (due to a tip, not an invitation) Agree with you here, when the secretary of state's office called and told them to resume counting, some effort should have been made to get the observers back in. But the only work done was scanning of ballots that had already been cleared, and it was all on camera, and all of the work they did while unobserved can be directly confirmed by recounts. So even though this happened, I don't see how it's evidence that the election was rigged. > they were delayed at the door until all activities they wished to observe had ceased. Having arrived at the front door after counting was finished, the one guard at the door stayed at the door instead of leaving his post, and he radioed someone else. The second person escorted them in, where they confirmed that yes, counting had ceased as they were told. Is there a couple minute window in there where you could say "the second person took too long and was stalling to cover something?" Sure, allow me to flex my creative writing muscles to concoct a reverse-heist in which this could actually matter and have affected the election: 1) The (democratic leaning) Fulton County election officials shut down counting for the night and allowed observers to leave. 2) Observers having been cleared, they colluded with the (republican) secretary of state's office to arrange a cover to resume scanning ballots. 3) They then used the unobserved counting session as an excuse to unseal the boxes under the table of verified but uncounted ballots. 4) Having these containers of ballots open, they hacked the security cameras to cover their activities. 5) The footage we've seen was actually recorded in a replica of the ballot counting room that they built in a warehouse last October, and the people seen counting ballots on it are all actors. 6) With the cameras hijacked and no observers present, they introduce and count fake ballots that did not actually come from the previously observed and sealed boxes. 7) Steal election! I don't have the full quality video recording or the forensic knowledge to analyze it, but as conspiracy theories go I don't find my scenario particularly compelling. > This isn't getting any better! If you say so.