It appears that in several precincts that were critical, the sensitivity or granularity settings on ballot scanners was turned up so coarse as to make 2/3 of the ballots unreadable by machine. This meant 2/3 of the ballots went through human adjudicators, who individually decided who had voted for whom.
The rejection rate is typically to be to be less than 1%, Guaranteed by the manufacturer, so this is clearly a case of machines which had been doctored on purpose: To put ballots in front of human beings instead of letting them be counted by the machines.
I think this is what happened in the Democratic primary election, where it took so long to count the votes that should’ve been counted overnight by the computer.
It takes a human being 100 times as long to look at a ballot and vote just a single mark, As it does for the vote counting machine.
They didn’t just have to convince Bernie to rollover and play dead, they had to actually go through the votes with human beings “fixing” the process.
The rejection rate is typically to be to be less than 1%, Guaranteed by the manufacturer, so this is clearly a case of machines which had been doctored on purpose: To put ballots in front of human beings instead of letting them be counted by the machines.
I think this is what happened in the Democratic primary election, where it took so long to count the votes that should’ve been counted overnight by the computer.
It takes a human being 100 times as long to look at a ballot and vote just a single mark, As it does for the vote counting machine.
They didn’t just have to convince Bernie to rollover and play dead, they had to actually go through the votes with human beings “fixing” the process.