Not quite.
XOXOGG explains it below, as Cyberninjas explained it yesterday, there are two distinctly different meanings of duplicate ballots. The ones where they were unreadable and, per guidelines, duplicated, were examined and not found to be an issue.
What Dr. Shiva talked about were multiple ballots sent and returned for the same voter ID.
Wrong. That is one type of duplicate ballot. The duplicate ballot the Cyber Ninja's talked about is the remaking a ballot that is too big or unreadable.
Dr. Shiva talked about voters that had more than one ballot.
The Cyber Ninja's were very clear about the same term being used for two different things at the beginning of their presentation.
For a duplicated ballot they are to reject one. Here they did not. They counted both. They passed all copies of the duplicated ballots through to signature verification, which we know they abandoned durring tabulation.
So, the general idea of a duplicate being illegal is a little off. Counting all copies is definately illegal, which is what was shown.
Wrong. But you are 1/2 correct. The term "duplicate ballot" refers to both ballots that were illegally counted twice, and ballots that were legally duplicated for corrections- as you pointed out.
One of the speakers at the audit commented on this exact point, and explained the difference between what was being called a "duplicate ballot," and a "duplicate ballot." The context is essential for knowing the difference between the illegal dupes, and the legal dupes. The speaker also mentioned that the duplicate ballots that Dr. Shiva was talking about were the illegal/suspicious type of "duplicated ballots." He also mentioned that the legal dupe ballots are often called by an abbreviation- three letters, I forgot what it is.
Regardless, it is good that you noticed, and pointed to the correct definition of "duplicate ballot," as there are many people who do not know that, nor understand that the term can apply to both legal, and illegal "duplicate ballots," depending on the context in which the term is used.
One can be merely mistaken, or one can be a flaming ass clown. OP chose the latter.
Cyberninjas clearly explained it yesterday - there are two distinctly different meanings of “duplicate ballots”, which should not be conflated or confused. The ones where ballots were unreadable and, per guidelines, duplicated, were examined and not found to be an issue per the Cyberninjas rep.
What Dr. Shiva talked about were multiple ballots sent and returned for the same voter ID. Significant fraudulent activity there.
I assume they verified that the duplicate ballots matched what a reasonable person's interpretation of the original ballot would be. If the original no longer exists, then the duplicate is not valid. The reason for making a duplicate in the first place is that the original has a flaw which prevents it to be machine-counted, as I understand it. If they duplicated ballots which could have been scanned correctly, then that is another problem.
no guy, I think they take your ballot and for some reason it gets kicked out as in machine can't read and an election worker makes a new ballot and tries to copy your intent. when this is done, both ballots should remain together, they are saying they have 17k they can't verify with an original ballot. I think.
They had thousands of votes where people voted more than once. The duplicate ballot which is printed because something happened to yours or it was unreadable still have to have the ballot identification number printed on the duplicate. They are saying there were 17,000 that did not have a correct identification number so they were fraudulent. Mind you they did not say fraudulent because their job was not to accuse it was to only report their finding.s
Well how about you explain it to us window lickers?
Since you apparently know everything.
I don't think that's what Shiva is saying.
He pointed this out to indicate that BOTH ballots were counted.
Meaning that if the 1st ballot was unreadable. A second ballot was created. But they counted both ballots anyways.
Why else would he point this out?
Not quite. XOXOGG explains it below, as Cyberninjas explained it yesterday, there are two distinctly different meanings of duplicate ballots. The ones where they were unreadable and, per guidelines, duplicated, were examined and not found to be an issue. What Dr. Shiva talked about were multiple ballots sent and returned for the same voter ID.
WRONG. That was the WHOLE POINT of what Shiva was saying. The duplicates and originals were ALL counted as if they were all legit votes.
This dude is correct.
Wrong. That is one type of duplicate ballot. The duplicate ballot the Cyber Ninja's talked about is the remaking a ballot that is too big or unreadable.
Dr. Shiva talked about voters that had more than one ballot.
The Cyber Ninja's were very clear about the same term being used for two different things at the beginning of their presentation.
For a duplicated ballot they are to reject one. Here they did not. They counted both. They passed all copies of the duplicated ballots through to signature verification, which we know they abandoned durring tabulation.
So, the general idea of a duplicate being illegal is a little off. Counting all copies is definately illegal, which is what was shown.
I wouldn't think it means a single person voted twice. I would think it means that someone copied a real vote and expanded the vote count.
That's what I thought it was as well.
Okay, I looked it up
Wrong. But you are 1/2 correct. The term "duplicate ballot" refers to both ballots that were illegally counted twice, and ballots that were legally duplicated for corrections- as you pointed out.
One of the speakers at the audit commented on this exact point, and explained the difference between what was being called a "duplicate ballot," and a "duplicate ballot." The context is essential for knowing the difference between the illegal dupes, and the legal dupes. The speaker also mentioned that the duplicate ballots that Dr. Shiva was talking about were the illegal/suspicious type of "duplicated ballots." He also mentioned that the legal dupe ballots are often called by an abbreviation- three letters, I forgot what it is.
Regardless, it is good that you noticed, and pointed to the correct definition of "duplicate ballot," as there are many people who do not know that, nor understand that the term can apply to both legal, and illegal "duplicate ballots," depending on the context in which the term is used.
One can be merely mistaken, or one can be a flaming ass clown. OP chose the latter.
Cyberninjas clearly explained it yesterday - there are two distinctly different meanings of “duplicate ballots”, which should not be conflated or confused. The ones where ballots were unreadable and, per guidelines, duplicated, were examined and not found to be an issue per the Cyberninjas rep.
What Dr. Shiva talked about were multiple ballots sent and returned for the same voter ID. Significant fraudulent activity there.
That would be voter fraud and not the all-encompassing election fraud that is so pervasive.
The fraud is in counting them twice.
For all the dumb-slinging y'all have just produced a useful thread on duplicate ballots. Good job.
I assume they verified that the duplicate ballots matched what a reasonable person's interpretation of the original ballot would be. If the original no longer exists, then the duplicate is not valid. The reason for making a duplicate in the first place is that the original has a flaw which prevents it to be machine-counted, as I understand it. If they duplicated ballots which could have been scanned correctly, then that is another problem.
Could be a person voting multiple times.
Could be multiple people using fake identification to vote for the same name.
Could be someone running the same ballot through multiple times.
So what?
It still counts as multiple votes, when it should count as one vote.
no guy, I think they take your ballot and for some reason it gets kicked out as in machine can't read and an election worker makes a new ballot and tries to copy your intent. when this is done, both ballots should remain together, they are saying they have 17k they can't verify with an original ballot. I think.
They had thousands of votes where people voted more than once. The duplicate ballot which is printed because something happened to yours or it was unreadable still have to have the ballot identification number printed on the duplicate. They are saying there were 17,000 that did not have a correct identification number so they were fraudulent. Mind you they did not say fraudulent because their job was not to accuse it was to only report their finding.s