This website contains age-restricted materials including nudity and explicit depictions of sexual activity.
By entering, you affirm that you are at least 18 years of age or the age of majority in the jurisdiction you are accessing the website from and you consent to viewing sexually explicit content.
Per the article
So, because in Tennessee, a QR Code error created a mismatch between the number of physical ballots vs tabulated ones, and they found the same code error in 64 out of 66 counties in Georgia’s tabulators, they are going to hand count the number of ballots to make sure it matches the number the tabulators counted. Especially, since they apparently found a bunch of additional ballots in some counties, as well…
I mean, this seems reasonable on the surface. But, considering the situation, it seems like it could all go really sideways.
Isn’t there another way they could count just the number of paper ballots? Like, as they come in, instead of later on, by hand? I’m not sure of the way thier system / machines work, or of a way that would convince everyone of privacy, but…like a laser counter that counts every time its broken, or something…Idk, there just seems like there has to be a better way.
Edit: so really, objectively speaking, this is an issue. One that wouldnt be caught unless they ordered a hand recount after the fact. I mean, obviously, this isnt an objective source, but, unless theyre just straight up making this up (which I suppose is a possibility), how is not having every ballot counted OK? Isnt there a better suggestion than breaking the seal immediately, counting everything by hand, and inviting all the issues that come with that? Something that could even be presented to the court or something as an alternative, that everybody could agree with. At least people could say they tried to solve the issue another way. If it gets rejected, then it would be plainly obvious there were ulterior motives. At this point, it sounds as if theres some plausible deniability behind the reasoning for hand counting.