Normally, I might be inclined to buy the "gum up" story. But coupling this with that other video from election day where people were talking about their votes not counting when they used sharpie cannot be a coincidence. Those people had no idea about this email.

So either that email is forged or there is something to this.

TRM said:

---

leftcoastaggie said:

---

It was already explained in court. Stop with the BS conspiracies.

Sharpies were used on the day of election because the ink dried faster. The ballots were run through a tabulator right after the voter marked their ballot. Using a ball point pen would allow the sill wet ink to gum up the tabulator and make it inoperable. The bubbles on the ballot were intentionally printed so they did not line up so a bleed through would not interfere with a vote on the back. This was already thrown out of court. Ball point pens could be used for early voting because the ink had time to dry before being run through the machine.

---

That's what aggiehawg quoted.

---

Yes, and this is what she replied:

Quote:

---

So you have just admitted that the early voting ballots marked with a pen were not counted.

Thank you.

---

While leaving off this part of my quote in her post:

Quote:

---

Ball point pens could be used for early voting because the ink had time to dry before being run through the machine.

---

That is a convenient edit of my post to make her point. Like I said, pretty pathetic.

Can we please do a test of the voting machine for accuracy.

Not new ballots. Use the ballots that were actually cast. See how many the machine messes up between sharpie and pen.

With the above issue, I would assume that such a test would be dispositive to the issue, one way or the other.

Oh, and "manufacturer says X" doesn't cut the mustard. We need an actual test.

leftcoastaggie said:

---

TRM said:

---

leftcoastaggie said:

---

It was already explained in court. Stop with the BS conspiracies.

Sharpies were used on the day of election because the ink dried faster. The ballots were run through a tabulator right after the voter marked their ballot. Using a ball point pen would allow the sill wet ink to gum up the tabulator and make it inoperable. The bubbles on the ballot were intentionally printed so they did not line up so a bleed through would not interfere with a vote on the back. This was already thrown out of court. Ball point pens could be used for early voting because the ink had time to dry before being run through the machine.

---

That's what aggiehawg quoted.

---

Yes, and this is what she replied:

Quote:

---

So you have just admitted that the early voting ballots marked with a pen were not counted.

Thank you.

---

While leaving off this part of my quote in her post:

Quote:

---

Ball point pens could be used for early voting because the ink had time to dry before being run through the machine.

---

That is a convenient edit of my post to make her point. Like I said, pretty pathetic.

---

So why didn't want them to use Sharpies in early voting then? After all if it dried faster, it should be good to use then, right?

BusterAg said:

---

Can we please do a test of the voting machine for accuracy.

Not new ballots. Use the ballots that were actually cast. See how many the machine messes up between sharpie and pen.

With the above issue, I would assume that such a test would be dispositive to the issue, one way or the other.

Oh, and "manufacturer says X" doesn't cut the mustard. We need an actual test.

---

They already did a test. Clint Hickman is a Republican. Steve Gallardo is a Democrat



Enjoy rehashing your debunked conspiracy. When another lawsuit is filed, let me know.

Can the election software be able to use the scanner for the markings to know which ones are sharpie and which ones are ballpoint pens? By darkness or gray scale on the scanner reading?

Perhaps the ballots read fine on a test run, but the software is used on Election Day on sharpie marked ballots to fix an outcome on the tabulation?


Asking for a friend!

leftcoastaggie said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Can we please do a test of the voting machine for accuracy.

Not new ballots. Use the ballots that were actually cast. See how many the machine messes up between sharpie and pen.

With the above issue, I would assume that such a test would be dispositive to the issue, one way or the other.

Oh, and "manufacturer says X" doesn't cut the mustard. We need an actual test.

---

They already did a test. Clint Hickman is a Republican. Steve Gallardo is a Democrat



Enjoy rehashing your debunked conspiracy. When another lawsuit is filed, let me know.

---

Not good enough.

We need a test of each type to see the different error rate numbers. This letter is a bunch of hand waving. They haven't performed the test that I suggested above.

If the error rate numbers are off by even between the two, it could still pass muster with the pre-election testing, and still provide an incentive to cheaters to pull the stunt off that is in the email.

If you don't think that the email looks extremely suspicious, you are just being willfully blind to it.

Or you cannot believe Trump lost Arizona

Because Trump can only lose because cheating

leftcoastaggie said:

---

It was already explained in court. Stop with the BS conspiracies.

Sharpies were used on the day of election because the ink dried faster. The ballots were run through a tabulator right after the voter marked their ballot. Using a ball point pen would allow the sill wet ink to gum up the tabulator and make it inoperable. The bubbles on the ballot were intentionally printed so they did not line up so a bleed through would not interfere with a vote on the back. This was already thrown out of court. Ball point pens could be used for early voting because the ink had time to dry before being run through the machine.

---

Hey leftcoastaggie - Did you know 'gullible' isn't a word in the dictionary??

leftcoastaggie said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Can we please do a test of the voting machine for accuracy.

Not new ballots. Use the ballots that were actually cast. See how many the machine messes up between sharpie and pen.

With the above issue, I would assume that such a test would be dispositive to the issue, one way or the other.

Oh, and "manufacturer says X" doesn't cut the mustard. We need an actual test.

---

They already did a test. Clint Hickman is a Republican. Steve Gallardo is a Democrat



Enjoy rehashing your debunked conspiracy. When another lawsuit is filed, let me know.

---

Then why did she instruct her people to not use sharpies prior to ED? I have never made the argument that the machines cannot read either ballpoint pen or sharpie, they are OPTICAL read devices. Black is black. The issue is that Kelly BELIEVED there was an issue and issued orders based on that belief. There is no other reason to explain why the change in pen use policy. Neither the ink smearing or pen supply problems posed here are adequate explanations, unless someone can provide correspondence evidence prior to the email that show that these were the concerns the election workers had. Then explain why this was a concern in just this one county just for this election. They are not reasonable explanations on their own merits.

Tanya 93 said:

---

Or you cannot believe Trump lost Arizona

Because Trump can only lose because cheating

---

Trump could have easily lost AZ with or without sharpie gate. His big mouth and disrespectful tone towards McCain was plenty for him to lose. It is surprising that he lost to a candidate that stammers and studders more the Giuliani.

But, I just want to stop election fraud.

I am going to be following and complaining about election fraud long after Biden is inaugurated. This type of fraud needs to be stamped out and stopped.

My actual hope, that I think is reasonable, is that eventually SCOTUS comes down hard on the states that broke their own laws, declares that the secretaries of state that certified the election without proper safety for the equal protection of every American clearly broke election laws, and do everything they can to make this a policy issue going forward. If that happens, it will be long after the inauguration.

That said, this is an issue that needs to get cleaned up. If there is a poll worker out there that is trying to game the system, that needs to be fixed. That is enough of a good reason to double check.

American Hardwood said:

---

leftcoastaggie said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Can we please do a test of the voting machine for accuracy.

Not new ballots. Use the ballots that were actually cast. See how many the machine messes up between sharpie and pen.

With the above issue, I would assume that such a test would be dispositive to the issue, one way or the other.

Oh, and "manufacturer says X" doesn't cut the mustard. We need an actual test.

---

They already did a test. Clint Hickman is a Republican. Steve Gallardo is a Democrat



Enjoy rehashing your debunked conspiracy. When another lawsuit is filed, let me know.

---

Then why did she instruct her people to not use sharpies prior to ED? I have never made the argument that the machines cannot read either ballpoint pen or sharpie, they are OPTICAL read devices. Black is black. The issue is that Kelly BELIEVED there was an issue and issued orders based on that belief. There is no other reason to explain why the change in pen use policy. Neither the ink smearing or pen supply problems posed here are adequate explanations, unless someone can provide correspondence evidence prior to the email that show that these were the concerns the election workers had. Then explain why this was a concern in just this one county just for this election. They are not reasonable explanations on their own merits.

---

There is a potential that sharpies are not as good as black ink. We don't know. Need to test that theory.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Pima County says no sharpies because they bleed, not because they aren't counted:

---

Then why were poll workers handing out Sharpies??

were they in Pima county?

Ag4coal said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I'd like to see the whole video. I was edited. Kind of like how aggiehawg cut off the quote of my post to create her false narrative. Looked like she was talking about mail-in ballots before the edit (which were fine to use a ball point pen), but it's hard to tell.

---

Okay genius, explain the difference between mail-in ballots and election day ballots?

---

I'm guessing he would say ail ins have plenty of time for the ink to dry...

I do recall a video of women saying their Sharpie ballot wasn't read. Maybe they were lying or whatever. Idk. But if we have SOME instances of Sharpie's not being read, we can't know how many weren't read.

No matter what, Sharpie-gate doesn't seem like a "gate". Possible human error. Possible machine error. Does not look like intent to spoil ballots

---

When this was discussed the first time there was an an entire group of voters on Tucker that voted with a sharpie and when they checked the status of their vote it wasn't counted. I remember the lady being interviewed and then she brought in a big group of people from her neighborhood standing behind her who all had the same problem.

So people did exist that voted with a sharpie that found out it didn't count.

It would take me some very hard convincing that sharpies aren't properly read by a voting machine. I'll leave some small chance if someone can provide the data. But as I've been saying, these devices aren't new. This process is not new. This technology is not new. But the complaints about sharpies here in 2020 is.

I really think the argument over whether or not there is a technical issue with sharpies is getting into the weeds. It is going to be an argument that is easily disproved and those that have invested to much into it will be discounted. The issue is what Kelly Dixon intended with her email based on her own beliefs, whether or not those beliefs were founded in something real or not.

Tanya 93 said:

---

Or you cannot believe Trump lost Arizona

Because Trump can only lose because cheating

---

I can handle the guy I voted for losing. I don't think the apparent results will change because I don't think the swamp has the stomach to do anything more than acknowledge some shadiness but not actually change results.

What I DO want to stamp out is fraud and shady officials running things locally. This email stinks to high heaven, and I'd like to see an explanation why this official thought there was enough of a problem with Sharpies to stop using them for early voting but at the same time that they would be okay for election day.

Pinche Abogado said:

---

The executive is the most powerful branch...it controls the administrative state.

If you havent paid attention to the size of the administrative state in the last 25 years, including case law relating to same, then I dont know what to tell you.

Administrative agencies are given HUGE deference to interpret their empowering legislation and administrative rules. It is nearly impossible to prevail on a suit against an administrative agency.

Legislation does nothing.

---

If the legislators did their job, the executive would not have so much power. It is laws that are vague and leave the implementation and interpretation to executive agencies that give the executive so much power.

taxpreparer said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

The executive is the most powerful branch...it controls the administrative state.

If you havent paid attention to the size of the administrative state in the last 25 years, including case law relating to same, then I dont know what to tell you.

Administrative agencies are given HUGE deference to interpret their empowering legislation and administrative rules. It is nearly impossible to prevail on a suit against an administrative agency.

Legislation does nothing.

---

If the legislators did their job, the executive would not have so much power. It is laws that are vague and leave the implementation and interpretation to executive agencies that give the executive so much power.

---

Agree, but that is not the state of affairs.

there are just too many rabbit holes to chase down, got to give'em credit for that.

WHAT IF

the ink was used to differentiate between mail in and election day ballots?

maybe innocuous maybe nefarious.

Pinche Abogado said:

---

taxpreparer said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

The executive is the most powerful branch...it controls the administrative state.

If you havent paid attention to the size of the administrative state in the last 25 years, including case law relating to same, then I dont know what to tell you.

Administrative agencies are given HUGE deference to interpret their empowering legislation and administrative rules. It is nearly impossible to prevail on a suit against an administrative agency.

Legislation does nothing.

---

If the legislators did their job, the executive would not have so much power. It is laws that are vague and leave the implementation and interpretation to executive agencies that give the executive so much power.

---

Agree, but that is not the state of affairs.

---

I disagree; that is exactly the state of affairs. If legislation was written correctly, E.O.s would be meaningless, and all those alphabet agencies would not be able to make up their own rules. The most effective power the president legally has is to veto legislation.

Sorry, I jumped to the federal level and this is a state issue. I know nothing about AZ lawmaking.

American Hardwood said:

---

It would take me some very hard convincing that sharpies aren't properly read by a voting machine. I'll leave some small chance if someone can provide the data. But as I've been saying, these devices aren't new. This process is not new. This technology is not new. But the complaints about sharpies here in 2020 is.

I really think the argument over whether or not there is a technical issue with sharpies is getting into the weeds. It is going to be an argument that is easily disproved and those that have invested to much into it will be discounted. The issue is what Kelly Dixon intended with her email based on her own beliefs, whether or not those beliefs were founded in something real or not.

---

Put me in a room with 5,000 ballots filled out with sharpies, 5,000 ballots filled out with pens, and a vote counting machine (actual ballots filled in by actual people, used in the election, not simulated ballots which could be manipulated).

Would take me 60 minutes, max.

leftcoastaggie and his pals pushed the Russia hoax for 3.5 years without any evidence yet they've been able to prove no election fraud in less than three weeks. Quite the trustworthy group.

leftcoastaggie said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

leftcoastaggie said:

---

It was already explained in court. Stop with the BS conspiracies.

Sharpies were used on the day of election because the ink dried faster. The ballots were run through a tabulator right after the voter marked their ballot. Using a ball point pen would allow the sill wet ink to gum up the tabulator and make it inoperable. The bubbles on the ballot were intentionally printed so they did not line up so a bleed through would not interfere with a vote on the back. This was already thrown out of court. Ball point pens could be used for early voting because the ink had time to dry before being run through the machine.

---

Show me the correspondence in this case that this was the issue.

---

It was in the court proceedings. Go look it up. I listened to the call when it was thrown out of court.

---

And you bought it hook, line and sinker! You want that to be the answer because it's the only answer that could possibly justify the narrative without any critical thinking. I'll help you out. So they lined up the ballot so no bleed through to another candidate would occur? Only problem is, a bleed through would leave a mark, on the ballot, that didn't coincide with any race or candidate and the machine would count it as a miss marked ballot. There's a reason they instruct you not to make any other marks on the ballot, it makes it invalid. So the ball point pen had time to dry? You understand that whether it's early voting or day of voting, after you mark your ballot, you feed it into the machine to be tabulated. Time difference is the same. Only mail in ballots and absentee ballots are fed into the machines by election workers. In person voting, whether it's early or election day are fed into the machine by the individual. Any other process would break the chain of custody.

You keep believing the bull**** though!

Watching the lefties double talk on this issue is hilarious.

I personally don't know if the sharpie use matters or not. But to not acknowledge the contradicting instructions and rationales is weak.

BMX Bandit said:

---

were they in Pima county?

---

Why would the county matter?

leftcoastaggie said:

---

It was already explained in court. Stop with the BS conspiracies.

Sharpies were used on the day of election because the ink dried faster. The ballots were run through a tabulator right after the voter marked their ballot. Using a ball point pen would allow the sill wet ink to gum up the tabulator and make it inoperable. The bubbles on the ballot were intentionally printed so they did not line up so a bleed through would not interfere with a vote on the back. This was already thrown out of court. Ball point pens could be used for early voting because the ink had time to dry before being run through the machine.

---

This really gets in the way of the "they cheated" narrative... You are not doing it right.

Again, why not use sharpies for every ballot? Why the need to use ballpoint pens at all?

Why was there not a standard process and marking instrument for every day of voting?


This is like a bank saying you need to sign your checks in ink on every day but Friday, but on Fridays you have to sign them in pencil. There is no sensible explanation for the need to have two methods and processes.

Keegan99 said:

---

Again, why not use sharpies for every ballot? Why the need to use ballpoint pens at all?

---

Because people were flipping out about the sharpies because of misinformation they read in places like this and it was becoming a whole thing.

Can you find a single instance of the sharpie issue here - or elsewhere - prior to election day?

Were they trying to conserve pens or something? I can buy that explanation especially given the testing of the reading machines. The letter can be interpreted to mean they could use any pens early but had to use faster drying sharpies later. The wording could have an innocuous interpretation.

As for votes of sharpie users not being tallied, I think that is less likely to be because of the sharpie and more likely because they found their way to a circular file, or some kind of actual tabulation error elsewhere.

We used two different ballot marking instruments (pens for early voting and markers on ED) because watching the triggered loons go down conspiracy theory rabbit holes afterward is so much fun. It was all just for fun!

Now lets go get that server in Germany!!!

American Hardwood said:

---

Quote:

---

No matter what, Sharpie-gate doesn't seem like a "gate". Possible human error. Possible machine error. Does not look like intent to spoil ballots

---

Ummm, that's exactly what it looks like. The obfuscation on this thread is to make it look like this wasn't the intent.

---

Why does intent matter?

Were all of the ballots counted and were they counted correctly? That's all that matters.

Even if she made an honest mistake that caused legitimate ballots not to be counted (if, in fact, they were not counted), that doesn't make the election any more legitimate.

Ask Comey, intent was all it took to exonerate Hillary from her email server crimes.