Stolen Colorado Ballots!

Three of the twelve stolen ballots will be counted in the general election.

#crimepays
Voter fraud is real.

Colorado needs to eliminate mail in ballots and require voter ID'S.

x.com/BehizyTweets/status/18498593405237...3D50batchtype%3DNext

FredHayek wrote: Colorado needs to eliminate mail in ballots and require voter ID'S.

Not going to happen, nor, frankly, do I think it should be eliminated.

What I do believe is that every ballot submitted via drop box or mail should be submitted to multiple automated verifications where software is utilized to authenticate the signature prior to the ballot being separated from its envelope. Those that are kicked out by said system being required to be cured as a result and that includes a comprehensive human quality control check of at least 1% of the processed ballots. The software should include at least 10 different comparison scans of the signature with failure of 2 or more of the 10 scans being sufficient to require curing the ballot before it is accepted and each ballot submitted should be examined by the system a minimum of 3 times.

Having a system that relied upon human examination alone might have been sufficient when a few hundred ballots were being examined, but the number is now in the millions and humans are too prone to error to have faith in such a system at that volume.

Good points. We all know in this era of technology that we have the ability to verify ballots as well as those who are actually eligible to vote... yet the left always puts their focus on making voting easier. If easier means more chances of fraud, then those who push for easier voting should also be pushing for a higher level of verification through multiple methods.... but they never do, which should tell you something.

In agreement,BUT the software company's apps needed to be EXTENSIVELY vetted.because human error is also a problem in programming....GI=GO. (and can be manipulated/hacked)....tek geeks r adroit at this and
present real and present danger....JMO

Ballot and signature verification might be much easier and faster with AI, but like HA says, I will want to see a lot of testing before we use it in real elections.

Anything involving an automated examination of the signature against a known example is going to be a lot more accurate than expecting a group of poll workers to become handwriting experts capable of verifying a signature after taking a short class to become certified to perform the function.

About 50% of the votes in Colorado are counted using an automated process initially. If the process passes the automated signature verification, it passes on to the next step. The other 50% of ballots are examined using an exclusively human process. In many of the counties, a single signature judge initially decides if the signature is a match with only the questionable signatures passed along to a two judge system. Both judges in the second tier have to agree the signature isn't a match to require the ballot to be cured before being counted. If there is disagreement, the ballot proceeds.

Our SecState Griswold has instructed the signature judges to approve the signature if there is at least a 51% chance that the signature is valid. Additionally, approved signatures are added to the SCORE database for validating signatures in the future, which means an invalid signature which was approved pollutes the SCORE database making it more likely a future invalid signature will be approved.

There is no outside auditing by certified signature analysts to judge the accuracy of the system in place at the current time. All auditing is internal, and all of the statistics about the system shared with the voting public are the result of these internal audits.

Bottom line is that when someone from the government tells you that we have a robust, safe, secure system in place to protect the sanctity of our elections using the all mail ballot process adopted in 2013, they are distributing information generated by the fox guarding the hen house.

There is NO fail safe in any plan, in any construct. There will always been uncertainty and error.because no machine.no person,no plan is 100% perfect. The "hanging chads" comedy of errors is the ultimate example....what a cluster fuck that was. JMO

So, essentially, having an airline do only internal audits on their plane maintenance is fine and dandy because no system is perfect. There's a reason outside, independent, audits are done HA, and there's a reason why the signature verification process isn't being audited by an independent auditor after an election cycle.