Let me get this straight...it takes zero experience running an election to audit an election. No experience needed in elections, election software or even election nomenclature, huh? Are we talking a quality audit of just an audit? You could hire me to do a financial audit of whatever company you work for and I'll give you a work order that says "complete" and an invoice. I'll even right up a report if you pay me enough. Not sure anyone would rightly accept that audit as accurate. Are you sure you don't live in AZ and not OK?
I'll play, where to move the goalpost to now?
Here is the current Maricopa Board or Supervisors. I've circled the ones that ran for election as Republicans in red according to Ballotpedia and the lonely Democrat in blue. Every member of the Maricopa Board of Elections has held their seat since at least 2019.
Clint Hickman (R): Re-elected in 2020 but her his bio has served his district since 2013.
Jack Sellers (R): Voted in 2020 after being appointed to the role in January 2019 per his bio.
Steve Chucri (R): Re-elected in 2020 but per his bio has served his district since 2013.
Bill Gates (R): Re-elected in 2020 and has served his district since 2017.
Steve Gallardo (D): Re-elected in 2020 and has served his district since 2015.
What's so unbelievable about this pattern is that Republicans at the State level are being urged on by the ignorant masses fueled by conspiracies to attack their own. Aside from attacking these R's in AZ, we've seen what they're doing in GA and in Antium County (or district) in Michigan Trump won with 57% of the vote. Yes, they are chasing ghosts even though members of their own party are saying ghosts don't exist.
"Scientific studies". Please link them because to date on this board has been nothing but bloggers and anonymous twitter accounts. Are you using an alternate version of the word "scientific"?
Here are the general rules for a scientific studies. Since I'm not certain you'll read them or support your claim of "scientific studies" I'll post the questions here because this is what you SHOULD be asking yourself about any studies you've read that result in a claim of election fraud. If not, you might not be as
scientific as you think. Generally speaking, every
analysis posted here that I've looked at
butchered rules 6-10, to make them incredibly
un-credible. It's also what will deflate any findings from this "audit" too.
1. Did the study appear in a peer-reviewed journal?
2. Who was studied, where?
3. How big was the sample?
4. Did the researchers control for key differences?
5. Was there a control group?
6. Did the researchers establish causality, correlation, dependence, or some other kind of relationship?
7. Is the journalist, or even the scientist, overstating the result?
8. Is there any conflict of interest suggested by the funding or the researchers’ affiliations?
9. Does the researcher seem to have an agenda?
[B]10. Do the researchers acknowledge limitations and entertain alternative explanations?[/B]Click to expand...