Georgia Auditing Elections Is A Good Way To Reinforce Confidence In System
Georgia has certified the 2020 General Election. Former Vice President Joe Biden has won Georgia–the first time a Democrat presidential nominee has won the state since 1992.
Georgia Republicans are understandably shell-shocked by the results, and I’m sure a lot of this questioning of the integrity of the election comes denial. I inherently trust the integrity of our elections process in Georgia, but I believed it was a good idea to have a hand-counted audit of the new election system to ensure that the vote totals are accurate (it is).
I also support an audit of the signatures on the envelopes–something that was urged by Governor Brian Kemp on Friday and supported by the Georgia GOP Executive Committee over the weekend. The signatures on mail-in absentee ballots are validated by elections officials trained by the GBI, but an audit should reinforce confidence in our elections process.
I believe these audits will give Georgia voters confidence in our processes and procedures as well as expose potential vulnerabilities that can be resolved by the Secretary of State or by the Georgia General Assembly. I also believe that these audits will, hopefully, shutdown talk by the Trump campaign that call into question the integrity and validity of the election–talk that is mostly just conjured up conspiracy rather than facts displayed for the public to see.
An audit won’t likely change the outcome of the election, but it should give us confidence that our institution is strong–regardless of the Democrats or Republicans who struggle to accept the outcome of this election or elections to come.
About Author
nsmith
Father. IT Geek. Former 14th District GOP Chairman (2015-2017). Former Walker GOP Chairman (2009-2013). Resident of Chamblee. American. Georgian. Conservative.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You’re asking for the impossible.
Signatures were validated before absentee ballots were sent. When the ballot was received the signature on the envelope was validated before the ballot was removed. From that point on ballots and envelopes are separated. There is no signature on the ballot. Why do you and the state party want to go through the envelopes again since they can no longer be tied to a ballot? The only reason I can see is a desperate attempt to create enough doubt to frame a legal challenge to the election results.
Here’s a good rundown of the procedure for handling absentee ballots.
https://www.13wmaz.com/article/news/politics/elections/signature-matching-georgia-why-it-cant-be-done-again/85-7342e2b5-3ad9-49fa-ba5b-ae6b89957770
“I also believe that these audits will, hopefully, shutdown talk by the Trump campaign that call into question the integrity and validity of the election”
That’s nonsense and you know it. Gopers will be campaigning on the stolen election of 2020 for a generation.
Kemp said, ““It’s important to note that this audit only looked at ballots, not the signatures on the absentee applications or the signatures on the ballot envelopes. The Georgians I have heard from are extremely concerned about this, so I encourage Secretary Raffensperger to consider addressing these concerns. It seems simple enough to conduct a sample audit of signatures on the absentee ballot envelopes and compare those to the signatures on applications and on file at the Secretary of State’s Office.”
https://allongeorgia.com/georgia-state-politics/kemp-calls-for-signature-audit-endorses-voter-id-for-mail-in-balloting/
So they can look at the signatures and try to match them up with those on file for voter registration? OK, that’s fine, so how do you decide which ballot corresponds to the signature? Or do you just look at signatures and decide to eliminate a corresponding number of ballots if the signatures do not match? It seems like a dangerous tactic for future elections as well.
I know my signature varies from time to time depending on my stress level, the pen/marker, and speed at which I sign it.
You guys need to quit catering to Trump, it is like trying to reason with a 2 year old child. It just leads to more childish behavior on his part and frustration on your part.
The lawsuit they will file will take one of two directions vis a vis the audit. If the audit is not conducted, it will raise claims of substantial fraud or ballot ineligibility based upon whatever affidavits they can muster, to say that the entirety of the results should be thrown out based upon those instances and allegations, because where there’s cigarette smoke, there’s a forest fire. The other way is if the audit is done, they will compile a list of all ballots that had contested jots and tittles- that could literally be any ballot that could be contested because signatures vary over time and such…) and say look what a high % of contested envelopes there are (also despite adjudication process having worked out disputes in bipartisan manner),and so throw out results because of high % and therefore high likelihood of substantial fraud. To date, most of the affidavits filed have been akin to someone saying they saw something suspicious, but no evidence of anyone actually doing anything wrong. Those without confidence in the system at this point will not be appeased by the audit- they will only have confidence if their leaders direct such. And that’s what they truly need- true and honest leadership, not appeasement.
I think you get the same levels of increased confidence in the election even if the audit is done after the New Year. Because doing it now won’t build confidence, it will become grounds for conflict and dispute. It will also enable the deniers, not appease them. As an example, I saw an interview with a woman who stated she was so sure there was fraud because look at the size of the Pres.’ rallies. How could he lose when he had so many ppl showing up for rallies? Which is like saying how could UGA ever lose because it sells out its stadium every game? Or how could anybody like any other music when a concert is sold out? Obviously logic is not the most prominent issue here, nor will an audit inspire any confidence in such beliefs. Right now the belief system is about sowing doubt and discord, regardless of what is done. The audit will only be useful for the hardcore doubters if they have faith in that procedure – and they won’t– until and unless the leader of the belief system changes position.
I’ll bite. But I think you need to reconsider your writings and thinking around what an audit of signature votes actually means.
I would first note that if you inherently trust the voting system, then an audit of the signatures is an extremist and petty demand.
Secondly, to what end? Trump will not be satisfied until he can throw out all of these ballots. He’s said it before. Don’t deny it. You should be protecting the election, not catering to the one guy complaining.
Do you bring in the same people in the same groups? And have them look at the same signatures again?
How many do you look at?
Is there film of the adjudicators to view? Perhaps to compare their decisions in real time?
Lastly, an idea: if you actually want to have and audit and not have the election thrown out, then add a double blind verification step to the signatures. Same process. Just twice with different people. Sure it’ll take longer, but You can audit what is essentially a small Jury deliberation
“The Georgia secretary of state’s office Monday poured cold water on calls for more scrutiny of voter signatures to root out potential fraud on absentee ballots cast in the presidential election…
But at a press conference Monday, a top state election official confirmed it would be impossible to fulfill Trump’s request. And though the kind of audit sought by the governor is technically feasible, the election official said there is no specific evidence of wrongdoing to warrant more scrutiny of voter signatures.
“We can’t open investigations based on generalized, `we’re not happy with the outcome’” of the election, said Gabriel Sterling, the state’s voting system manager. “If somebody comes to us with specific evidence, we investigate that.””
https://www.ajc.com/politics/election/georgia-election-official-pours-cold-water-on-signature-audit/XREQA4OWEBCALI3IIGWSV6KTLM/
Well, that’s that.
Also of note from Mr. Sterling in that article: “…Sterling said such an audit would not be easy. He said it’s not clear who would conduct such an audit, who would pay for it and exactly how it would be conducted. And he said there’s no evidence it’s needed.”
It wasn’t that long ago when the Guv was SoS that he deemed there wasn’t enough in his budget to keep the state archives open. Our majority party has spent millions on implementing new voting machines and a new tabulation system, not to mention the training required at the county level. How much more money is expected to be spent on the counts, audits and recounts just to pacify the paranoid in our supposed “conservative” party?
There is no amount of money, nor audits nor recounts, that will pacify/appease some. It is an outcome that is wanted, but money can’t buy that outcome. Will there be a moment when some realize that the thing they’ve always wanted (like a by-the-book official?) has been right before their eyes the whole time?