Lost votes are those votes where people voted but their votes were discarded.
Ghost votes are those votes cast by someone other than the voter assigned to the vote.
Dead voters accounted for a significant number of these anomalies.
Seth Keshel: if there is serious fraud present we are talking about serious human rights violations and lack of equal protection under the law for the voters who had their votes stolen… We did not press the breaks long enough in this country to be able to look at this under the microscope and see if there could be some serious misrepresentation in the state legislature as well.
Link to the canvas report
https://canvass50.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Maricopa-County-Canvass-Report-Final-090821.pdf
https://canvass50.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Maricopa-County-Canvass-Report-Final-090821.pdf
BTw this whatever this report is was compiled by a private citizen and her gang of volunteers.
How would she have access to any kind of official voting record/data???
And even if she did its obvious from the error on PAGE ONE!!! that is she is not qualified to author any kind of report. Not if accuracy is important...
However it is riling up the base. So I am guessing mission accomplished
How would she have access to any kind of official voting record/data???
And even if she did its obvious from the error on PAGE ONE!!! that is she is not qualified to author any kind of report. Not if accuracy is important...
However it is riling up the base. So I am guessing mission accomplished
Conradson: How did you pick the houses to canvass? What kind of issues gave them a red flag?
Harris: So we did a random sample. That’s how we pretty much started at the beginning, but we made sure that we went to houses like if it were a 1200 square foot home, and there were 10 different last names coming from it, things like that. But more importantly, what we did in the last two months, is we did full precinct audits and partial precinct audits. So what we did was we strategically did one on the west side, one in central Phoenix, and one on the east side. And that’s pretty much, you know, it’s just picked places in different geographic areas, the demographics like we don’t look at race ever. But, moneywise, we went to a more affluent area, a middle of the road area, a less affluent area. So we really, we want to get a, you know, a broad spectrum snapshot of the different registered voters.
Conradson: What is the next step, will you be releasing more with the Senate audit report?
Harris: So our stuff is independent of the Senate report. I hope that Senate President Karen Fann allows us to do some work, officially for the Senate report that would be absolutely amazing. If they read what we have, I think the information, now we’re being conservatively low with our numbers. But I’ll just be honest, even if our numbers are a smidge high, you can’t unsee what we’ve seen. That’s pretty much what I have to say. We know, and we’ve known this since December 3. Or excuse me, we’ve known this since the first week of December when we started the canvassing. So, we’re excited. So what’s next, we’re really hoping that legislation changes so that the mail-in ballot is limited to the military and the disabled. And then the another thing we would like to see is smaller precinct sizes, and what the county is trying to do is increase the precinct sizes to 5000 registered voters, and we’re saying no, we want the precincts to be 1000 registered voters and there’s a couple of reasons I’ll go over quickly. One is we want short lines, because we want to encourage people to vote in person, and then the second one is to hand count the ballots. Instead of paying these machine companies, let’s pay the residents of Arizona. And when you have 1000 registered voters and 70 to 80% turnout, a precinct counting 700 ballots, is very easy and doable. We can have the winners announced by midnight, and then when we wake up the next day, the same person that won on Election Day is the winner the following day. Isn’t that a novel idea?
Conradson: So, how much longer will you be canvassing?
Harris: You know the canvassers asked me that every day, and this is gonna sound a little bold of me. But I think the canvassing efforts need to go on in every state until the states recognize that they need to take corrective action, and in the state of Arizona based on what I’ve seen, I am calling for decertifying.
Conradson: Yes, so is State Rep. Mark Finchem, and State Senator Wendy Rogers, she’s been doing that for a while. Can you tell us about your website Canvass50.com?
Harris: Yes, Canvass50.com was just launched this morning we’re extremely excited. We’ve already had almost 50,000 views, we have tens of thousands of people who have signed up. So if you want a free copy of the Maricopa County findings, go to Canvass50.com, and it’s strategic. We’re just asking you what method did you use to vote, we’re just saying, “Did you vote in person or by mail?”, and then as canvasses start to organize around the country that data will go to the teams, so that they have a head start. And we’ve already had tens of thousands of people since this morning, tell us what methods they use to vote. Your data is not being sold or anything, it’s not nefarious, nobody’s running for office, nobody’s fundraising. All we want to do is let the world know that the canvass is more important than the count and that we need to really figure out Countrywide, what happened November 2020.
Liz Harris is a true patriot and a ferocious fighter for election integrity. Her leadership is sparking a nationwide canvass of the 2020 election and were going to find out what really happened.
Every patriot in every state needs to organize canvassing efforts of their own and encourage others to visit Canvass50.com and participate in this digital canvass.
Harris: So we did a random sample. That’s how we pretty much started at the beginning, but we made sure that we went to houses like if it were a 1200 square foot home, and there were 10 different last names coming from it, things like that. But more importantly, what we did in the last two months, is we did full precinct audits and partial precinct audits. So what we did was we strategically did one on the west side, one in central Phoenix, and one on the east side. And that’s pretty much, you know, it’s just picked places in different geographic areas, the demographics like we don’t look at race ever. But, moneywise, we went to a more affluent area, a middle of the road area, a less affluent area. So we really, we want to get a, you know, a broad spectrum snapshot of the different registered voters.
Conradson: What is the next step, will you be releasing more with the Senate audit report?
Harris: So our stuff is independent of the Senate report. I hope that Senate President Karen Fann allows us to do some work, officially for the Senate report that would be absolutely amazing. If they read what we have, I think the information, now we’re being conservatively low with our numbers. But I’ll just be honest, even if our numbers are a smidge high, you can’t unsee what we’ve seen. That’s pretty much what I have to say. We know, and we’ve known this since December 3. Or excuse me, we’ve known this since the first week of December when we started the canvassing. So, we’re excited. So what’s next, we’re really hoping that legislation changes so that the mail-in ballot is limited to the military and the disabled. And then the another thing we would like to see is smaller precinct sizes, and what the county is trying to do is increase the precinct sizes to 5000 registered voters, and we’re saying no, we want the precincts to be 1000 registered voters and there’s a couple of reasons I’ll go over quickly. One is we want short lines, because we want to encourage people to vote in person, and then the second one is to hand count the ballots. Instead of paying these machine companies, let’s pay the residents of Arizona. And when you have 1000 registered voters and 70 to 80% turnout, a precinct counting 700 ballots, is very easy and doable. We can have the winners announced by midnight, and then when we wake up the next day, the same person that won on Election Day is the winner the following day. Isn’t that a novel idea?
Conradson: So, how much longer will you be canvassing?
Harris: You know the canvassers asked me that every day, and this is gonna sound a little bold of me. But I think the canvassing efforts need to go on in every state until the states recognize that they need to take corrective action, and in the state of Arizona based on what I’ve seen, I am calling for decertifying.
Conradson: Yes, so is State Rep. Mark Finchem, and State Senator Wendy Rogers, she’s been doing that for a while. Can you tell us about your website Canvass50.com?
Harris: Yes, Canvass50.com was just launched this morning we’re extremely excited. We’ve already had almost 50,000 views, we have tens of thousands of people who have signed up. So if you want a free copy of the Maricopa County findings, go to Canvass50.com, and it’s strategic. We’re just asking you what method did you use to vote, we’re just saying, “Did you vote in person or by mail?”, and then as canvasses start to organize around the country that data will go to the teams, so that they have a head start. And we’ve already had tens of thousands of people since this morning, tell us what methods they use to vote. Your data is not being sold or anything, it’s not nefarious, nobody’s running for office, nobody’s fundraising. All we want to do is let the world know that the canvass is more important than the count and that we need to really figure out Countrywide, what happened November 2020.
Liz Harris is a true patriot and a ferocious fighter for election integrity. Her leadership is sparking a nationwide canvass of the 2020 election and were going to find out what really happened.
Every patriot in every state needs to organize canvassing efforts of their own and encourage others to visit Canvass50.com and participate in this digital canvass.
Totally get the frustration fellas, but I am not worried about it .....yet ,,lol
https://twitter.com/WendyRogersAZ/status/1434671764315967489?s=20
https://twitter.com/WendyRogersAZ/status/1434671764315967489?s=20
Yeah full transparency...
https://www.azmirror.com/2021/08/30...ency-is-another-reason-to-mistrust-its-audit/
“The most transparent election audit in American history” — or so it was dubbed by the biased contractors running it — is fighting tooth and nail to keep its records hidden from the public.
Right now, the Arizona Senate is gearing up to release the findings of its so-called audit of Maricopa County’s 2020 election. Based on the actions of the Senate and its contractors, Arizonans already have ample reason to dismiss the results.
[COLOR=var(--brand_two)][FONT="][/FONT][/COLOR][FONT="]GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX[/FONT]
SUBSCRIBE
But the recent aggressive attempts to block transparency should be the final straw. In multiple lawsuits, the Senate is not only refusing to comply with longstanding Arizona public records laws; it is arguing that the law does not even apply to it. It has gone from attacking faith in Arizona elections to assailing a core tenet of representative democracy: that government officials work for the public.
In the spring, my organization, American Oversight, filed routine public records requests with the Senate about its audit. When faced with noncompliance, we filed a lawsuit to enforce the public’s right to know. The Senate tried to dismiss our case and has refused to comply with two court orders rejecting its arguments. Just last week, the Arizona Court of Appeals soundly rejected the Senate’s arguments that it had no obligation to release records in the physical possession of contractor Cyber Ninjas, finding that those records “are no less public records simply because they are in the possession of a third party.”
But dubious legal arguments have not stopped the Senate in its goal of slowing down transparency so it can complete its “audit” and disinformation campaign on its own terms. Immediately after losing in the appeals court, the Senate filed a motion for an emergency stay in the state Supreme Court, which last week granted a hold on the release of Cyber Ninjas’ records, with a conference not scheduled until Sept. 14.
The Senate’s determination to shield information about the sham process from the same public it purports to be working to reassure is reason enough to doubt both its commitment to the public interest and the credibility of the audit itself. In recent court filings, the Senate has evinced a startling disdain for basic government transparency. It has characterized the request for the records of contractors and subcontractors — who, on behalf of the legislature, are engaged in a public function — “invasive and sweeping,” and has referred to calls for transparency as “generalized bromides” and “pleasant-sounding platitudes” while rejecting the demand that it show its work as “partisan.”
[COLOR=var(--black)](The Senate) has gone from attacking faith in Arizona elections to assailing a core tenet of representative democracy: that government officials work for the public.
Such rebukes are nonsense: Transparency is in the public’s interest and is a core part of Arizona law. Perhaps the Senate’s objection reveals something about the audit — that the contents of their documents would harm leaders politically. That doesn’t make the record requests partisan; it makes the Senate partisan for obstructing them.
It shouldn’t be surprising that the Senate wants to avoid transparency at all costs. As delays have stretched the audit’s timeline from weeks into months, stories about embarrassing security issues and other errors have demonstrated the consequences of the contractors’ lack of qualifications. An independent evaluation conducted by the States United Democracy Center found that the process “does not meet the standards of a proper election recount or audit,” citing error-prone methodology and problematic contracting, among other major issues. Just last month, Doug Logan, the CEO of lead contractor Cyber Ninjas, unleashed a new wave of misinformation with an outlandish claim of 70,000 extra mail-in ballots. It was easily revealed as false — but not before it took hold online.
Moreover, public reporting as well as records uncovered by American Oversight in our own investigation have shown the involvement of disreputable election conspiracists and have provided a glimpse of problematic direct contact with voters. Our investigation has revealed that top officials undertook the “audit” with predetermined conclusions in their sights and a blatant disregard for the harm it would inflict on our democracy, deferring to lies about voter fraud and the desire of former President Trump to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
In July, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Michael Kemp ruled that releasing records was a matter of “compelling public interest demanding public disclosure and public scrutiny.” The Senate asserted that it does not have custody of contractors’ records, while failing to address the fact that those records are of vital public interest. At the same time, it has released a few hundred pages of documents, including communications of Senate President Karen Fann and audit spokesperson Ken Bennett, exhibiting an apparent belief that it can pick and choose which items to show to the public. The week before Kemp’s ruling, the Senate even said it was reviewing more than 15,000 additional documents for voluntary release; during the hearing in the appeals court, that number rose to 22,000. None have been produced.
Given what has been released — from text messages with conspiracy theorists to boasts from Fann of having been thanked by Trump personally for “pushing to prove any fraud” — that obfuscation should worry not just the Arizonans whose ballots have been examined and handled by inexperienced contractors, but also Americans across the country who have seen their own state legislators adopt the same incendiary rhetoric to push for more election-undermining investigations and unnecessary reviews.
As we wait for the Senate to share its biased and non-credible “findings,” what we have already learned about the audit’s biased origins and its deleterious effect on faith in our elections represents a grave threat to U.S. democracy. The amount we have yet to learn about its operations is just as alarming.
[FONT="]SUPPORT NEWS YO[/FONT]
https://www.azmirror.com/2021/08/30...ency-is-another-reason-to-mistrust-its-audit/
“The most transparent election audit in American history” — or so it was dubbed by the biased contractors running it — is fighting tooth and nail to keep its records hidden from the public.
Right now, the Arizona Senate is gearing up to release the findings of its so-called audit of Maricopa County’s 2020 election. Based on the actions of the Senate and its contractors, Arizonans already have ample reason to dismiss the results.
[COLOR=var(--brand_two)][FONT="][/FONT][/COLOR][FONT="]GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX[/FONT]
SUBSCRIBE
But the recent aggressive attempts to block transparency should be the final straw. In multiple lawsuits, the Senate is not only refusing to comply with longstanding Arizona public records laws; it is arguing that the law does not even apply to it. It has gone from attacking faith in Arizona elections to assailing a core tenet of representative democracy: that government officials work for the public.
In the spring, my organization, American Oversight, filed routine public records requests with the Senate about its audit. When faced with noncompliance, we filed a lawsuit to enforce the public’s right to know. The Senate tried to dismiss our case and has refused to comply with two court orders rejecting its arguments. Just last week, the Arizona Court of Appeals soundly rejected the Senate’s arguments that it had no obligation to release records in the physical possession of contractor Cyber Ninjas, finding that those records “are no less public records simply because they are in the possession of a third party.”
But dubious legal arguments have not stopped the Senate in its goal of slowing down transparency so it can complete its “audit” and disinformation campaign on its own terms. Immediately after losing in the appeals court, the Senate filed a motion for an emergency stay in the state Supreme Court, which last week granted a hold on the release of Cyber Ninjas’ records, with a conference not scheduled until Sept. 14.
The Senate’s determination to shield information about the sham process from the same public it purports to be working to reassure is reason enough to doubt both its commitment to the public interest and the credibility of the audit itself. In recent court filings, the Senate has evinced a startling disdain for basic government transparency. It has characterized the request for the records of contractors and subcontractors — who, on behalf of the legislature, are engaged in a public function — “invasive and sweeping,” and has referred to calls for transparency as “generalized bromides” and “pleasant-sounding platitudes” while rejecting the demand that it show its work as “partisan.”
[COLOR=var(--black)](The Senate) has gone from attacking faith in Arizona elections to assailing a core tenet of representative democracy: that government officials work for the public.
[COLOR=var(--black)]– Austin Evers[/COLOR]
[/COLOR]Such rebukes are nonsense: Transparency is in the public’s interest and is a core part of Arizona law. Perhaps the Senate’s objection reveals something about the audit — that the contents of their documents would harm leaders politically. That doesn’t make the record requests partisan; it makes the Senate partisan for obstructing them.
It shouldn’t be surprising that the Senate wants to avoid transparency at all costs. As delays have stretched the audit’s timeline from weeks into months, stories about embarrassing security issues and other errors have demonstrated the consequences of the contractors’ lack of qualifications. An independent evaluation conducted by the States United Democracy Center found that the process “does not meet the standards of a proper election recount or audit,” citing error-prone methodology and problematic contracting, among other major issues. Just last month, Doug Logan, the CEO of lead contractor Cyber Ninjas, unleashed a new wave of misinformation with an outlandish claim of 70,000 extra mail-in ballots. It was easily revealed as false — but not before it took hold online.
Moreover, public reporting as well as records uncovered by American Oversight in our own investigation have shown the involvement of disreputable election conspiracists and have provided a glimpse of problematic direct contact with voters. Our investigation has revealed that top officials undertook the “audit” with predetermined conclusions in their sights and a blatant disregard for the harm it would inflict on our democracy, deferring to lies about voter fraud and the desire of former President Trump to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
In July, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Michael Kemp ruled that releasing records was a matter of “compelling public interest demanding public disclosure and public scrutiny.” The Senate asserted that it does not have custody of contractors’ records, while failing to address the fact that those records are of vital public interest. At the same time, it has released a few hundred pages of documents, including communications of Senate President Karen Fann and audit spokesperson Ken Bennett, exhibiting an apparent belief that it can pick and choose which items to show to the public. The week before Kemp’s ruling, the Senate even said it was reviewing more than 15,000 additional documents for voluntary release; during the hearing in the appeals court, that number rose to 22,000. None have been produced.
Given what has been released — from text messages with conspiracy theorists to boasts from Fann of having been thanked by Trump personally for “pushing to prove any fraud” — that obfuscation should worry not just the Arizonans whose ballots have been examined and handled by inexperienced contractors, but also Americans across the country who have seen their own state legislators adopt the same incendiary rhetoric to push for more election-undermining investigations and unnecessary reviews.
As we wait for the Senate to share its biased and non-credible “findings,” what we have already learned about the audit’s biased origins and its deleterious effect on faith in our elections represents a grave threat to U.S. democracy. The amount we have yet to learn about its operations is just as alarming.
[FONT="]SUPPORT NEWS YO[/FONT]
