@busillis, you just advanced to level 28!

What is your definition of widespread voter fraud? Any fraud is too much and voter is disenfranchised the whole election is in question? Or hundreds of thousands of votes?

The definition is established by the Code of Procedures.

That's a weasel word answer.

When you build a system or create a system you create metrics to measure the systems performance.

The hearings in front of the legislatures this week offered all kinds of evidence. The accusations made by the affiants are evidence because they submitted the affidavits which puts them under penalty of perjury. There is video in Georgia. There are statistical improbabilities that are so egregious to the point of being impossible. There is much evidence and it needs to be heard in court.

Don't kill the messenger. I didn't make the Rules.

No system is completely foolproof but there's acceptable levels of deviation from the metric.

Those people are in actual danger of perjury that's just something they say

The paragons of eyewitness evidence don't seem to pass for me...

The only acceptable levels of deviation are levels that have no ability to change the result. There is enough evidence is all the disputed states to change the result.

you have the it check that's never really been in the environment where votes are counted with those machines making wild assertions.

This would be an indication of bias on your part.

I agree it is bias...

But then I did a thought experiment and tried to figure out how that would actually work.

So the secret ballots don't have another way for the machine that they're not being read twice?

How do you explain that the secret ballot number matches the number of a ballot in the pole book?

And the Michigan case the ballot has to be requested

When it comes in it's matched to a signature for whatever little that's worth match to a serial number in the poll book then read.

You're going to have to be more specific. Way too many cases going on for that kind of generality.

What kind of operation would it take to have 100 sent out then received and sent back in that are requested.

Then a thousand

@Soburin That was the whole idea. Gives *you* the impression that it's a thing.

The ballot requesting software isn't looking for multiple inquiries from the same IP addresses that's not easily ascertained by the system administrators?

If it's not a thing it can be proven in court. Keeping it out of the courts just raises suspicion.

what 'ballot requesting software'? what even is that

We can't prove it in court but it feels right so...

Courts aren't where you do investigations. Courts are where you present evidence. They know what evidence is.

the irregularities can be proven in court. the violation of state election law can be proven in court. Why not let it be hashed out in court?

https://ballotrequest.sos.ga.gov/voter/voterSearch

@Soburin that's the automated information system way that Georgia voters have a ballot mail to them.

404 - Not Found

I wake up in the Morning and see Snow on the Ground. Can I prove it Snowed overnight if I didn't see it fall from the Sky?

They are being heard in court...and being rejected because they are junk, useful only to convince people of their feelies.

but I got your point from the link. You're talking about voters requesting their absentee ballots.

https://ballotrequest.sos.ga.gov/

@Soburin try that link

If you land on the page then you've likely proved my point.

The server requests are kept up with on a per session basis and tracked

So there's server logs for requests.

So if people utilize this automatic ballot request system they would have to have a different IP address quarry and had a ballot sent to them flags that could be traced.