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.

This goes in hand with making really weird accusations against people that have otherwise done nothing wrong.

Presumption of innocence.

Which is inherently more likely from the outside perspective without additional info/bias?
Fair election.
Fraudulent Election.
Easy answer.

Yeah... It happens on both sides, sadly. We are our own worst enemy. Almost none of the people who voted for Trump are fascists or racists. And almost none of the people that voted for Biden are socialist/communist/antifa etc.

And yet everyone focuses on the "almost" and very few on the "none".

Its very satisfactory to point out the idiot. It makes you feel clever.

This is why you, as a politician, need to point out the idiots in 2020

Agreed.

your followers needs someone to feel better than.

In a tactful way.

This is what happens when people regress culturally.

If I agree with you, what does that say of me?

So you don't turn into another Hillary.

@TaLoN132 that you are human?

@TaLoN132 just note this; if you want to be better than the rest, be so by merit. Not by empty words.

Power struggles are just human.

there lies the great divider

the talker or the doer.

Leader and follower, yes.

the boss and the employee.

well, yes and no. You can follow great men and still acquire merit.

A good corporal can determine an outcome.

But one must take great care who one follows.

Sure, but it allocates you a position of power when you're doing your work well.

It means you can do many more things, like ask for a raise and not be laughed out of the room.

IMO seems like Life is just hierarchy on hierarchy on hierarchy, etc.

oh, it is

put three kids in a room, and in 10 min you have a hierarchy

it isnt a matter of having one. It is a matter of which one.