aggiehawg said:

---

richardag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

About f***in' time.

---

I believe your questioning of Runbeck and potential problems was spot on.

---

The more I dug into reaerching them, the more alarmed I became t....

---

... and you repeated it until you were as blue in the face as the color of this post. Way too many irregularities. Hell, even their own video showed if their process was followed, none of this could have happened without being caught. Size/shape/layout of ballot paper, weight of envelopes, voter roles/addresses, signature verification, chain-of-custody, etc etc etc.

According to Runbeck themselves, they could report in real-time valid vs questionable ballots. Election day came and went and no data was published, no answers were given.....all just went quite.

And you were there right along with me, giving an assist when the technology was beyond my knowledge to explain it to me. Thanks again.

aggiehawg said:

---

And you were there right along with me, giving an assist when the technology was beyond my knowledge to explain it to me. Thanks again.

---

To be honest, until you shared the link to the video Runbeck had created on the process and shared the documentation of the process, I wasn't even looking at them as part of the problem. After reviewing, nothing that was happening made sense.

• They claimed all ballot design, size of paper, layout, paper weight, QR code, etc had to be agreed upon and signed off on before a single ballot was printed. There should have been ZERO chance paper ballots arrived on different stock, different shapes, unreadable QR codes due to alignment issues
• They claimed ballots were packed and weighed and then weighed again when received back from the voter. If they failed they were pulled and placed in a provisional hold....didn't happen
• In every step of the process there was supposed to be an instantly auditable chain of custody, there wasn't (or at least all of that has been hidden to date)

The whole thing stinks. Best case scenario, they had massive human error because they couldn't/didn't do anything their company documentation said they would and should never be allowed to provide this service in a local/state/federal election.

Just like Dominion, Pro V&V, and SLI Compliance, none of them followed their own guidelines and processes.

TexAgs91 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

In an election:
1 obvious cheating happens
2 courts drag their feet
3 the loser "wins" the election
4 proof is found years later and it's "too late to do anything about it"
5 nothing is fixed for the next election
6 repeat

This is what happens if citizens continue to allow the government to run elections.

---

I get the sentiment, but who would run it then?

Runbeck is a private company. So, it appears they may be compromised.

---

The system is broken. It doesn't allow for tainted ballots to be tossed out when fraud has occurred. There is no recount anymore like the 2000 election. If you have 100s of thousands of pristine ballots that supposedly came in an envelope without being folded you do a recount end exclude those from the count.

---

I don't really disagree with any of that, but it doesn't get to my question.

Who would run elections other than the government?

Quote:

---

Who would run elections other than the government?

---

I could be wrong, but I believe the admonition is against the Federal government being involved/running it. It's a state function, administered county by county, I do believe.

BoerneGator said:

---

Quote:

---

Who would run elections other than the government?

---

I could be wrong, but I believe the admonition is against the Federal government being involved/running it. It's a state function, administered county by county, I do believe.

---

It's supposed to be handled more at the local level but once states like Georgia mandated everything in that state being exclusively run by Dominion and in conjunction with Runbeck, everything got outsourced to private vendors with no oversight nor reporting back to the state officials.

aggiehawg said:

---

MaroonStain said:

---

Didn't Kommie Hobbs get to certify their own election?

---

Yes. Refused to recuse herself in the governor's election in 2022.

---

Perfectly normal, honest, election. Nothing strange here. All is well. Joe Biden is of sound mind.

aggiehawg said:

---

BoerneGator said:

---

Quote:

---

Who would run elections other than the government?

---

I could be wrong, but I believe the admonition is against the Federal government being involved/running it. It's a state function, administered county by county, I do believe.

---

It's supposed to be handled more at the local level but once states like Georgia mandated everything in that state being exclusively run by Dominion and in conjunction with Runbeck, everything got outsourced to private vendors with no oversight nor reporting back to the state officials.

---

Even the most staunch Trump haters can't defend that as an honest, secure, way to conduct an election. What a mess.

Gigem314 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

BoerneGator said:

---

Quote:

---

Who would run elections other than the government?

---

I could be wrong, but I believe the admonition is against the Federal government being involved/running it. It's a state function, administered county by county, I do believe.

---

It's supposed to be handled more at the local level but once states like Georgia mandated everything in that state being exclusively run by Dominion and in conjunction with Runbeck, everything got outsourced to private vendors with no oversight nor reporting back to the state officials.

---

Even the most staunch Trump haters can't defend that as an honest, secure, way to conduct an election. What a mess.

---

Barnes gave it his level best by taking a dump of derision

aggiehawg said:

---

---

Why was John Bolton counting hanging chads?

aggiehawg said:

---

BoerneGator said:

---

Quote:

---

Who would run elections other than the government?

---

I could be wrong, but I believe the admonition is against the Federal government being involved/running it. It's a state function, administered county by county, I do believe.

---

It's supposed to be handled more at the local level but once states like Georgia mandated everything in that state being exclusively run by Dominion and in conjunction with Runbeck, everything got outsourced to private vendors with no oversight nor reporting back to the state officials.

---

What is the "answer" to this going forward? State by state legislation? When Democrats are as brazen and determined to steal elections as they are, it's hard to "stay ahead" of their aggression.

but but the CMs on this board told Lake is a nutjob spouting election conspiracies.

BoerneGator said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

BoerneGator said:

---

Quote:

---

Who would run elections other than the government?

---

I could be wrong, but I believe the admonition is against the Federal government being involved/running it. It's a state function, administered county by county, I do believe.

---

It's supposed to be handled more at the local level but once states like Georgia mandated everything in that state being exclusively run by Dominion and in conjunction with Runbeck, everything got outsourced to private vendors with no oversight nor reporting back to the state officials.

---

What is the "answer" to this going forward? State by state legislation? When Democrats are as brazen and determined to steal elections as they are, it's hard to "stay ahead" of their aggression.

---

I certainly do not want the federal government any more involved in elections than they already are other than some campaign finance tweaks removing the possibility of Zuckbucks being used again.

But it ultimately does come back to the states to address.all of their issues. My best advice would make a state law contracting clause that any outside vendor having election business with the state must be fully auditable and transparent, including source code and other proprietary information upon request. If they do not agree, they are not eligible state contractors and can no longer do business with the state.

BoerneGator said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

BoerneGator said:

---

Quote:

---

Who would run elections other than the government?

---

I could be wrong, but I believe the admonition is against the Federal government being involved/running it. It's a state function, administered county by county, I do believe.

---

It's supposed to be handled more at the local level but once states like Georgia mandated everything in that state being exclusively run by Dominion and in conjunction with Runbeck, everything got outsourced to private vendors with no oversight nor reporting back to the state officials.

---

What is the "answer" to this going forward? State by state legislation? When Democrats are as brazen and determined to steal elections as they are, it's hard to "stay ahead" of their aggression.

---

Yes it has to be state by state because they are the ones who run elections, and state courts generally have jurisdiction/venue for most challenges as well.

The answer is paper ballots, and ID's. But when communists run elections…the goal is to prevent any kind of voting integrity.

Suffice to say, I too do not wish to see ANY involvement by the Fed, but how can we expect fairness in states run by Democrats? THAT is the dilemma facing freedom loving Americans. It's not enough that Red states' elections are fare if blue and purple aren't! We're all in this struggle together, and we need to work together to win!

BoerneGator said:

---

Suffice to say, I too do not wish to see ANY involvement by the Fed, but how can we expect fairness in states run by Democrats? THAT is the dilemma facing freedom loving Americans. It's not enough that Red states' elections are fare if blue and purple aren't! We're all in this struggle together, and we need to work together to win!

---

SCOTUS had the option to address this but punted.

Quote:

---

The answer is paper ballots, and ID's. But when communists run elections…the goal is to prevent any kind of voting integrity.

---

Again, I agree, but no control!

Please elaborate. Can't imagine how they might influence the matter.

Ag with kids said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

In an election:
1 obvious cheating happens
2 courts drag their feet
3 the loser "wins" the election
4 proof is found years later and it's "too late to do anything about it"
5 nothing is fixed for the next election
6 repeat

This is what happens if citizens continue to allow the government to run elections.

---

I get the sentiment, but who would run it then?

Runbeck is a private company. So, it appears they may be compromised.

---

The system is broken. It doesn't allow for tainted ballots to be tossed out when fraud has occurred. There is no recount anymore like the 2000 election. If you have 100s of thousands of pristine ballots that supposedly came in an envelope without being folded you do a recount end exclude those from the count.

---

I don't really disagree with any of that, but it doesn't get to my question.

Who would run elections other than the government?

---

Paragraph one

BoerneGator said:

---

Please elaborate. Can't imagine how they might influence the matter.

---

The lawsuits Paxton and other state AGs filed as a matter of original and exclusive jurisdiction with SCOTUS that they refused to accept.

"Every vote should count"

Suuuuure

This kind of sums it all up.

Quote:

---

Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer is upset that the court pointed out that signature verification procedures set forth by Katie Hobbs in 2019 when she was secretary of state don't match the law. Richer alleges that will mean more work.


Richer took to the press to unburden his woes. The county recorder, beset by an unrelenting public scrutiny of election procedures that he translates into constant threats to democracy, told ABC 15 that his office would have to take the extra pains to follow the letter of the law.

"If I had to guess I would say it would result in a lot more curing, meaning we would need to contact the voters and say, hey, your signature doesn't look like the now only one signature that we have on file for you, that might be from forty of fifty years ago," Richer said.

The additional responsibility for county recorders became clear after Yavapai County Superior Court Judge John Napper declared in ruling last week that the 2019 Election Procedures Manual (EPM) by Hobbs "create[d] a process that contradicts" the law. That ruling rejected Secretary of State Adrian Fontes' motion to dismiss an Arizona Free Enterprise Club lawsuit alleging that Fontes' interpretation and enforcement of signature verification law, which aligned with that of Hobbs, did not match the actual statute's language.

In response to Napper's ruling, the press raised alarm among voters in its coverage featuring Richer. Arizonans were warned their early vote may not count because election officials would be required to verify signatures using registration records only, versus signatures from other documents or past ballots. Echoing Richer, their reporting speculated signatures could be rejected en masse due to the signature on file being an older variation, or warped by MVD digitization.

That means for two major elections, an unlawful signature verification process was enforced. Napper reminded Secretary of State Adrian Fontes that he has a "non-discretionary duty" to properly instruct county recorders on lawful vote tabulation.

---

Poor baby, has to actually work at his job.

LINK

aggiehawg said:

---

captkirk said:

---

---

In reality, it provides them real time counts that they use to manufacture more ballots.

---

Among the many changes to all the laws, no counts should be visible until the count is finished and polls are closed.

Wait you mean cornpop ISNT the most popular President in the history of our country and it took massive fraud in 6-8 counties and weeks to count to finally declare him the winner?

Who would have thunk it.

Quote:

---

Among the many changes to all the laws, no counts should be visible until the count is finished and polls are closed.

---

Was seldom an issue until mass mail in ballots. Can easily "bank" those in case you need them to change the outcome.

We saw tha in AZ 2022 when the in person election day vote was widely suppressed by man made scanning issues and then the black hole that was Door #3.

The funny thing about that day was that the Maricopa Election officials were citing a 300,000 number for Door #3 number of ballots earlier in the day but that number didn't change much over the course of the rest of the day.

Don't get me started on elections should be limited to election day, in person voting limiting exceptions to those serving in military/roles oversees and individuals who are legitimately unable to vote in person.

I personally consider "convenience" a pretty disgusting argument in a family with uncles landing in France, on destroyers in the Pacific, a father in the sky over Korea, and cousins in deserts.

Ag87H2O said:

---

captkirk said:

---

BREAKING: A Runbeck Election Services whistleblower claims approximately 300,000 illegal ballots for Katie Hobbs were inserted into the Arizona 2022 election without going through the lawful chain of custody.

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) September 10, 2023

---

This should outage every American. If it slips by without serious scrutiny and investigation, this country/government is lost for good. Arizona Republicans should be all over this and if proven true, a lot of people need to be in prison. Maybe even demand a special election for every office in question.

---

Screw prison. Death penalty.
Yes, it's that important to have election integrity.

MookieBlaylock said:

---

Where the Concerned moderates at to defend this?

---

sorry i took so long! boy, some of you will believe just about anything you read as long as someone puts the word "BREAKING" in front of it. the "leading reports" account that posted the tweet in OP just baits engagement from the most media illiterate minds on twitter by posting red meat trough slop headlines with no context or reporting. their tweets get community noted for being bull**** all the time. unfortunately, this tweet is just repackaging "reporting" from gateway pundit 9 months ago:

HUGE: Runbeck Whistleblower Reveals That Chain Of Custody For OVER 298,942 Maricopa County Ballots Delivered To Runbeck On Election Day Did Not Exist, Employees Allowed To Add Family Members' Ballots Without Any Documentation https://t.co/Y1fugIZHXq via @gatewaypundit

— Kari Lake (@KariLake) December 12, 2022

i put "reporting" in quotes because the whistleblower claim comes from kari lake's Kraken-style lawsuit to throw out the results of her 2022 election loss:

Quote:

---

According to Kari Lake's lawsuit contesting the 2022 election, a Runbeck employee stated that "Runbeck received 298,942 ballots on Election Day, which includes the EV ballots. The required chain of custody for these ballots does not exist."

---

this lawsuit got slapped down immediately, and then again in may.

tl;dr, don't believe everything you read on the internet folks!

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Among the many changes to all the laws, no counts should be visible until the count is finished and polls are closed.

---

Was seldom an issue until mass mail in ballots. Can easily "bank" those in case you need them to change the outcome.

We saw tha in AZ 2022 when the in person election day vote was widely suppressed by man made scanning issues and then the black hole that was Door #3.

The funny thing about that day was that the Maricopa Election officials were citing a 300,000 number for Door #3 number of ballots earlier in the day but that number didn't change much over the course of the rest of the day.

---

This issue would be simple to overcome if states required that ballots had to be serialized and the number reported two days before election day. So we know 100k ballots were sent out, then we know the number to expect.

Old McDonald said:

---

MookieBlaylock said:

---

Where the Concerned moderates at to defend this?

---

sorry i took so long! boy, some of you will believe just about anything you read as long as someone puts the word "BREAKING" in front of it. the "leading reports" account that posted the tweet in OP just baits engagement from the most media illiterate minds on twitter by posting red meat trough slop headlines with no context or reporting. their tweets get community noted for being bull**** all the time. unfortunately, this tweet is just repackaging "reporting" from gateway pundit 9 months ago:

HUGE: Runbeck Whistleblower Reveals That Chain Of Custody For OVER 298,942 Maricopa County Ballots Delivered To Runbeck On Election Day Did Not Exist, Employees Allowed To Add Family Members' Ballots Without Any Documentation https://t.co/Y1fugIZHXq via @gatewaypundit

— Kari Lake (@KariLake) December 12, 2022

i put "reporting" in quotes because the whistleblower claim comes from kari lake's Kraken-style lawsuit to throw out the results of her 2022 election loss:

Quote:

---

According to Kari Lake's lawsuit contesting the 2022 election, a Runbeck employee stated that "Runbeck received 298,942 ballots on Election Day, which includes the EV ballots. The required chain of custody for these ballots does not exist."

---

this lawsuit got slapped down immediately, and then again in may.

tl;dr, don't believe everything you read on the internet folks!

---

Pretty sure you have little idea what Runbeck even does. Thanks for making that point for me.

ETA: Just to be compleely clear here, Runbeck sells it self as the private vendor that DOES provide an EASILY AUDITABLE CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD FOR EVERY BALLOT THEY CREATE, SEND OUT, COLLECT, SCAN.