(12-01-2020, 11:13 AM)p_rushing Wrote:

(12-01-2020, 10:31 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is, in Georgia, people filled out paper ballots, which were fed into a machine and counted by the machine.  After the election, they did a hand recount of the paper ballots, not using the machines at all, and the hand recount confirmed the machine count.  Am I wrong?  What's the point of examining the machines if they took the machines completely out of the process and hand counted the ballots?

It doesn't appear they hand counted it, unless I read something wrong. I think they reprocessed the paper copy through the same machines. They did some type of hand count but it was limited and not official, there are reports they were told to just report the 1st numbers.

They vote on touch screen and then it prints a copy and is read.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

No, it was a full hand recount of all 5 million ballots.  They didn't check the entire ballot, only the presidential choice.  

People who voted in person used touch screens, which then generated a paper ballot so people could check for a mistake.  Those paper ballots, along with absentee ballots, were all recounted by hand.  So a machine cannot possibly change votes, because they generate paper records which are checked by the voter and then turned in, and which can be audited in a full hand recount, which Georgia did. 

So there's no way a voting machine could have changed any votes without it being detected in the recount.

---