Is "they" the public which aren't experts in signature matching, nor have any training regarding it, wanting high res images so they can erroneously point out perceived flaws to fit their preconceived narrative?

Bipartisan literally means dueling interests in most cases, but alright..?

no, you sighted GBI

That's not the only group of people that have gone over ballots.

Here is a question: How are you claiming the adjudication process ended up being fraudulent.

you already said it was illegal

but don't believe her

Yes, because of a variety of reasons.

so like I said lol nm

The adjudication process is DECIDED by 1 Democrat and 1
Republican poll watcher. Other poll watchers can view the process but don’t become part of the process.

When they say 80000 absentee ballots need adjudicated because they are flagged this doesn’t mean there was 80000 problems or decisions made to determine the voter. This is misinformation being spread by your “Twitter source”. When they take 100 ballots and scan them and find 1 issue and the bipartisan review fixes that 1 ballot all 100 were adjudicated. If a batch of ballots have no problems they become adjudicated. The law requires to check them more carefully for issues than in person votes. This is not evidence of fraud.

Partially incorrect.

It's 1 of each party on the ballot.

And 1 supervisor.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/772982351520333824/795366603158978610/unknown.png

Each political party represented on the ballot gives their own representative for adjudication.

Which was a total of 4+1.

Or 3+1

Fair enough

It was 3+1.

Was Biden, Trump, and Jo on the ballot.

And they're also not poll watchers.

They're literally the vote review panel.

But from the same article showing how many ballots went through the process they explained a small fraction of the votes in the batches actually gets that review process. This was intentionally left out and they pretended the bulk of the votes were changed

Well not bulk all

Just because they go to adjudication doesn't mean they're changed, rarely does it mean they're changed.

Only really "changed" when it's an overvote.

Yeah agree that’s the crux of the adjudicators are determining the whole election fraud allegation

And overvotes are things like having held a pencil/pen on a candidate and then voted for the other.

Which is usually clear to see by the vote review panel.

Most of the adjudications were <20% fills.

Which means the choice is obvious to a voter review panel.

Someone used a checkmark in place of circling it in, etc.

Also - I know you know this, but I point it out for others that might be reading, people assume that the need for adjudication is always related to the presidential race My guess is that the vast, vast majority of adjudications have nothing to do with the presidential race. They tend to be problems with races where multiple candidates can be selected.

That's also one of them, yep.

Anything with <=20% fill and anything that has exclusive selections having more than one selection are adjudicated.

Also I think recently they had said to use checkmarks in ballots rather than fill out the marked area.

Which would increase adjudication rates.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9106951/Lab-leak-credible-source-coronavirus-outbreak-says-government-official.html

One of the biggest issues for me, though, is the assumption that the letter next to your name (party affiliation) means that one is willing to cheat (compromise their integrity) in order to gain the upper hand for their party. I can tell you that absolutely none of people that I know who volunteer to help with elections would ever debase themselves in that manner - and I know people on both sides of the aisle that do election work.

They consider their service in support of our democracy as virtually a sacred duty. That doesn't mean that some of them don't get a little haughty at times, but it would never lead to them turning a blind eye to or participating in fraudulent activity. I have to imagine it is the same for the vast majority of election workers.

This is the idea behind Hanlon's Razor and Occam's Razor.

Why on earth would you presume the worst from someone you don't know? It's more often than not more correct to give people the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise.