2/7 Professional auditors would assess the material risks and then *sample* ballots for verification---enough to create a deterrent risk of detection for fraudsters, but few enough to allow for reliable review by (seriously) trained examiners, but…
3/7 …election clerks review Every. Single. Ballot. even though they don’t have the technology or skills to make that even close to efficient, reliable. Clerks seem happy to rely on an army of lightly trained temps…
4/7 …who get no routine feedback (as far as I can tell) on their accuracy rates. (*Accuracy* rate, I said. Not rejection rate.) You might say: “But elections with integrity cannot tolerate even one incorrectly submitted ballot!”
5/7 But that every-single-ballot standard disappears when it comes to incorrect rejections. I see election officials without qualm disenfranchising thousands of legit voters, calling it a ‘success’ when a voter cures a signature, when in fact…
6/7 …a cured signature proves the reviewers’ failure to accept a legit ballot w/o inconveniencing an innocent voter. Professional auditors would consider it intolerable failure if their efforts caused thousands of legit ‘transactions’ to be cancelled…
7/7 …which is what happens when a legit voter doesn’t have the time or energy to cure an incorrectly challenged signature. And don’t get me started on the decorative post-election exercises many clerks call ‘audits.’ @USGAO, has any election agency ever asked for any advice?
