will25u said:
If you click on the link in the tweet there is a more complete explanation of what occurred.
JUNE 2021 BROOKLYN NY PRIMARYfrom the article:
Quote:
We have discovered discrepancies that raise concerns and deserve further exploration. These were reported to the coordinators at each poll site and directly to the Board of Elections. The Board of Elections responded by removing our project leader as a poll watcher and changing the information our poll watchers were allowed to view. Now we cannot collect the data necessary for the successful completion of the project[url=/:/cr=t:0%25,l:0%25,w:100%25,h:100%25/rs=w:1300,h:800][/url]
A more complete picture about the over votes
/:/cr=t:0%25,l:0%25,w:100%25,h:100%25/rs=w:1300,h:800Quote:
Board of Elections Response
We told the coordinator about the discrepancy. In our opinion, she showed no concern. It was subsequently reported to the Board of Elections, in person, and also via an email thread that included members of the Campaign Finance Board and the Chief Democracy Officer from the Mayor's office.
The Board of Elections responded with an email that our "concerns may stem from the public count on scanners vs. pieces of paper. Public counter counts the first sheet of a ballot as it is representative of the number of voters, not the number of ballots."
We are aware that with a 2-page ballot, the public counter counts one ballot, but the protective counter counts two. If the discrepancy were due to that, then there would be 480 voters and 960 ballots scanned. But that is not the number that we found. Furthermore, at other polling locations, the number of voters checked in and the number of ballots scanned was very close. So from our experience, this does not explain the problem.
This stinks to the high heavens.
The Democratic Party leadership is corrupt.
Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787