14 ms·

1 million ballots at 10,000 per batch means 100 batches. It seems they will use 400 ballots from each batch as a sample, and if anything is wrong for one of tho

1 million ballots at 10,000 per batch means 100 batches. It seems they will use 400 ballots from each batch as a sample, and if anything is wrong for one of those 400 sample ballots, then the entire batch of 10,000 is sent back. Some nefarious actor could find 100 messed up ballots and include one in each sample of 400, and viola! 100 ballots invalidates 1 million votes. That's quite a system they got there.

grim_io 16d ago
Maybe I'm stupid, but why would sending back mean invalid? It gets sent back, it gets investigated and fixed, and back it goes. Am I missing something?
- snypher 16d ago
  Everyone wants a winner on the day, and if the votes are pushed back it goes into 'hanging chad' time, which some appointed judge can just decide if the votes are included / the winner.
  - dpkirchner 16d ago
    I'd wager most of us are OK with it taking a few days. There's a (relative) few weirdos that get upset if they see the numbers change as votes continue to be tallied.
- wavemode 16d ago
  No, the verification they're doing is on the sending side, not receiving. The state sends people ballots, the USPS intercepts them and sends them back to the state if they find an issue. IF this cycle of delays lasts long enough, then some people never receive a mail-in ballot, or receive it too late
  - peterleiser 15d ago
    Thanks for the correction! I misread the outbound vs. return mail details. I agree with you about the IF on the cycle of delays.
- dabinat 16d ago
  They only tested 400 out of 10,000, so there’s every chance when it goes back there’ll be another reason to reject it. You’re also assuming that the government’s data is accurate and the rejections are not disingenuous. If the ballots were actually accurate the state now needs to go through the process of proving that particular voter is eligible. Do state elections departments have the time and manpower to do all of that for however many get rejected? The goal is clearly to waste as much time as possible so the ballots don’t arrive on time.

grim_io 16d ago

Maybe I'm stupid, but why would sending back mean invalid? It gets sent back, it gets investigated and fixed, and back it goes. Am I missing something?

snypher 16d ago
Everyone wants a winner on the day, and if the votes are pushed back it goes into 'hanging chad' time, which some appointed judge can just decide if the votes are included / the winner.
- dpkirchner 16d ago
  I'd wager most of us are OK with it taking a few days. There's a (relative) few weirdos that get upset if they see the numbers change as votes continue to be tallied.
wavemode 16d ago
No, the verification they're doing is on the sending side, not receiving. The state sends people ballots, the USPS intercepts them and sends them back to the state if they find an issue. IF this cycle of delays lasts long enough, then some people never receive a mail-in ballot, or receive it too late
- peterleiser 15d ago
  Thanks for the correction! I misread the outbound vs. return mail details. I agree with you about the IF on the cycle of delays.
dabinat 16d ago
They only tested 400 out of 10,000, so there’s every chance when it goes back there’ll be another reason to reject it. You’re also assuming that the government’s data is accurate and the rejections are not disingenuous. If the ballots were actually accurate the state now needs to go through the process of proving that particular voter is eligible. Do state elections departments have the time and manpower to do all of that for however many get rejected? The goal is clearly to waste as much time as possible so the ballots don’t arrive on time.