Georgia Supreme Court Rejects Trump-Aligned Effort To Require Poll Workers To Hand Count Ballots In November.

How would this infringe on voters rights? A hand count would ensure the ballot count matches the machine count.

That would help ENSURE accuracy.
It would of also given election officials the power to not certify votes based on their own feelings. You're supposed to have to go to court if you want to challenge someone's vote. We don't give insecure white election officials dictatorial powers in backwater redneck States anymore.
 
GA is probably the weakest of the swing states on ballot security.

A hand count is a common-sense step to validate the tabulator totals. It does not mean the ballots have to actually be counted by hand- there are machines not much larger than a desktop printer whose only function is to count the paper.

You can count the number of ballots quickly with these machines, and compare the totals to the tabulator totals. A mismatch will alert you to a potential error made during the tabulation process, a match gives you confidence that the ballots were properly tabulated.

Not quite right.

The law wasn't, run ballots through a separate counting machine. It was to actually have a person count the paper ballots.

And as part of the election validation process random samples are already taken and validated to ensure the tabulators provided consistent results. Then the number of ballots cast are compared to the number of voters tallied as casting ballots to ensure that the counts are correct (within a relevant statistical range).

WW
 
Yep! You're a prime example of the pussyfication of American men.

.

I am sure you think that way. That I am not willing to spend 16 hours a day working away from my family makes me a pussy your brainwashed mind.

I say it makes me smart, and I am willing to bet I am far better of finically than you are
 
It would of also given election officials the power to not certify votes based on their own feelings. You're supposed to have to go to court if you want to challenge someone's vote. We don't give insecure white election officials dictatorial powers in backwater redneck States anymore.
It would have compared the total ballot tally to what the machine said. They were not going to be looking at the votes themselves, just that the total ballot count that the machines found matched what the hand count found. A discrepancy would warrant further investigation

How could you not want this? Machines make mistake you know, right?
 
It would have compared the total ballot tally to what the machine said. They were not going to be looking at the votes themselves, just that the total ballot count that the machines found matched what the hand count found. A discrepancy would warrant further investigation

How could you not want this? Machines make mistake you know, right?
I don't give a fuck what they were looking at. They don't have the power to unilaterally refuse to certify someone's vote. The thing we all as citizens at the age of 18 have a constitutionally protected right to do. It's only wannabe fascists that fail to understand this simple fucking point. Thankfully all of America's wannabe fascists are third generation white cuckolds at this point. They were raised on participation trophies. They don't know how to work or fight for what they want. :lol:
 
It would have compared the total ballot tally to what the machine said. They were not going to be looking at the votes themselves, just that the total ballot count that the machines found matched what the hand count found. A discrepancy would warrant further investigation

How could you not want this? Machines make mistake you know, right?

It wasn't the concept, although it is silly as the machines are calibrated, tested, and certified before each election. Then post eleciton verified by running random sample batches to check results.

The main issue was the rule change coming down at the last minute greatly increasing the man-hours required to run an election with no provisions for (A) hiring additional workers, (B) training additional workers, and (C) funding the training and work hours for the additional workers.

The whole intent of the change wasn't to improve voting integrity. The purpose of the rule change was to sow chaos.

WW
 
I don't give a fuck what they were looking at. They don't have the power to unilaterally refuse to certify someone's vote. The thing we all as citizens at the age of 18 have a constitutionally protected right to do. It's only wannabe fascists that fail to understand this simple fucking point. Thankfully all of America's wannabe fascists are third generation white cuckolds at this point. They were raised on participation trophies. They don't know how to work or fight for what they want. :lol:

Who said anything about certifying a vote? It only has to do with making sure the ballot tally’s match. That has nothing to do with vote certification. You’re looking for a problem that doesn’t exist.

Thankfully all of America's wannabe fascists are third generation white cuckolds at this point. They were raised on participation trophies. They don't know how to work or fight for what they want. :lol:

1) what the hell does any of that have to do with making sure ballot tally’s are accurate

2). The democrats are the participation trophy crowd.

3) why is everything about race with you.

Sounds to me like you are afraid to make sure the number of ballots the machine counts matches the number of ballots the tabulator counts.
 
It wasn't the concept, although it is silly as the machines are calibrated, tested, and certified before each election. Then post eleciton verified by running random sample batches to check results.

The main issue was the rule change coming down at the last minute greatly increasing the man-hours required to run an election with no provisions for (A) hiring additional workers, (B) training additional workers, and (C) funding the training and work hours for the additional workers.

The whole intent of the change wasn't to improve voting integrity. The purpose of the rule change was to sow chaos.

WW

Dem courts had last minute rule changes in 2020, you all supported that.
 
Dem courts had last minute rule changes in 2020, you all supported that.

#1 I'm not a DEM.

#2 The changes in 2020 where the result of a declared National Emergency that was killing people.

#3 I support local officials making adaptations to election procedures to help people vote in the two hurricane disaster areas right now.

WW
 
#1 I'm not a DEM.

#2 The changes in 2020 where the result of a declared National Emergency that was killing people.

#3 I support local officials making adaptations to election procedures to help people vote in the two hurricane disaster areas right now.

WW

1) you often come across as a dem..

2) courts are not allowed to change election laws, that’s for the legislature

3). All they are asking for is to make sure ballot tallies are accurate. Why would you not support this?
 
The Georgia state election board’s controversial mandate requiring poll workers to hand-count the number of ballots cast will not take effect for the 2024 election.


The Georgia Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a bid by the Republican Party to reinstate the hand-count mandate and another new rule after a lower-court judge halted the rules last week.

The court’s unanimous decision prevents, for the foreseeable future, what election workers and state officials had warned would be a chaotic procedure that could lead to errors, fraud and protracted delays. The hand-count rule would have required poll workers across Georgia, starting as soon as election night, to perform a manual count of the number of ballots cast.
Another victory for democracy.
 
Election integrity only became an issue because trump lost. Just admit that at least.
That’s not true. Repubs were fighting for election integrity, it’s the dems who have been trying to change the rules, and throwing election security to the wind, not requiring signature verification, voter ID, etc
 
That’s not true. Repubs were fighting for election integrity, it’s the dems who have been trying to change the rules, and throwing election security to the wind, not requiring signature verification, voter ID, etc
You dumb ass if a state doesnt require an id, it's got signature verification. All your kind does is lie. Just admit you listening to trump say over and over falsely that elections are rigged has turned you into this lying, anti-american piece of shit. But let me get this straight. You also thought the 2016 Iowa primary caucus was rigged because trump said it was.
 
The longest night I worked Election Day 2008. Started at 5:30AM, got home 10:00 PM. There still people in line we closed at 8:00 PM and they had to vote. I was definitely dragging ass when I got home. My wife made me hot roast beef sandwich, a cold Sierra Nevada and I was in bed. I woke up the next day at 11:00 AM.
obama's first election , 2008, was a zoo here in the 9th ward. every young female in the precinct showed up for the primary this year. i expect no less election day.
 
Yep! You're a prime example of the pussyfication of American men.

.
Says the guy on here crying every day about trump losing an election or being prosecuted for crimes he committed. Man up and just admit trump is a piece of shit.
 
Who said anything about certifying a vote? It only has to do with making sure the ballot tally’s match. That has nothing to do with vote certification. You’re looking for a problem that doesn’t exist.

you are not looking at every thing they asked for. the hand count was just one of a half a dozen things
 
I am sure you think that way. That I am not willing to spend 16 hours a day working away from my family makes me a pussy your brainwashed mind.

I say it makes me smart, and I am willing to bet I am far better of finically than you are


Yeah, sound like you only signed paychecks on the back. Running your own business takes time and commitment. And it allowed me to retire early.

.
 
Back
Top Bottom