Absentee Record Template: Fill & Download for Free

This is a long answer that will summarize all the testimonies and rebut most of the misleading information.Most of the people have covered the fact that this wasn’t an official hearing, it was more like a GOP clubhouse meeting with a GOP Pennsylvania legislator. No one was under oath.It seems that they held a similar meeting in Arizona with similar results. It’s performatively trying to look official to give more credence to their conspiracy theories and misinformation since they clearly don’t have the evidence to press forward in court.This was a superspreader event. They attempt to spread misinformation masquerading as official testimony…and no one wore a mask in a small hotel ballroom.Let’s look at Giuliani’s testimony, first.To summarize in advance, it’s full of either lies or ignorance mixed with misinformation.During the course of this election, we’ve come pretty close to losing our right to free speech. There’s been censorship that I’ve never seen before, of an incredible nature by big tech, big networks, big companies.This is utter nonsense. “Big tech” can’t censor you, by definition your right to free speech is protected from the government. Facebook has been removing fake posts, while Twitter has been labeling them as misinformation (but still showing them). This is Victimhood talk, and pathetic victimhood talk on top of it. What I’m reading here is that the Trumpists don’t want government out of business, they want to regulate media companies to only tell their truth.You know there was a fierce debate over whether we should have mail-in ballots in the first place.It’s so bizarre the different factual universes we find ourselves in. We’ve always had mail-in ballots. Every state had a way to mail in ballots for decades. Several states have exclusively mail in ballots. PRESIDENT TRUMP ALWAYS VOTES BY MAIL! This narrative has been invented by the GOP who have spend decades stacking the deck through dozens of legalized voter suppression measures.[1][1][1][1] They knew that voter turnout would be increased significantly by mail in ballots and have been eroding public trust in the process that the President himself utilizes in order to stage this last ditch attack on Democracy.Many scholars, many experts, always felt that mail-in ballots were very dangerous because they’re very easy to forge, it leads to more defrauding. We will warned by Justice Souter, among others. We will warned by President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, in a report that they did on how to make elections more secure.I couldn’t find what Souter said other than a decision that he would have upheld restrictions in Texas on helping the elderly cast their ballots out of fears of ballot harvesting.[2][2][2][2] Also, The Carter Foundation found the exact opposite thing that Giuliani has claimed.[3][3][3][3]“I urge political leaders across the country to take immediate steps to expand vote-by-mail and other measures that can help protect the core of American democracy – the right of our citizens to vote,” said former President Carter.Giuliani continues:Witnesses we present are going to first show you that, in the case of Philadelphia, and in the case of Allegheny County, and one or two other counties, the mail-in ballots that were received, were not inspected at all by any Republican, they were hidden from Republicans. In the case of Philadelphia and Allegheny County, I can’t be absolutely certain, but I do believe the witnesses will show that a Republican never got to see a single ballot.This is directly contradicted by their lawyers:The transcript from one of Trump’s legal challenges is fascinating. The judge trying to get to the bottom of whether they WERE allowed to have observers:Judge : “Are your observers in the counting room?”Trump lawyer: "There's a non-zero number of people in the room.” pic.twitter.com/CU4VbqIfj4— Man vs Baby (@mattcoyney) November 6, 2020Not just in this case, but in every one.Giuliani continues to complain about absentee ballots not being a problem normally because it’s acceptable to have a little bit of fraud, in his book (I mean, to be fair, there’s likely always a small amount of fraud, these elections are a big deal).That’s a huge number of votes, 65% of the vote had been cast. Under normal circumstances, like if this were a fair media, your state would have been called for Trump. Virginia was called with 10% of the vote, it turned out to be separated by 1%.I think we may have actually won Virginia, but that’s another battle. Michigan, we were ahead by 300,000 votes, Wisconsin, more. Georgia, we were down to 90% and ahead. What are the odds that they all switched overnight? They just switched by the next day.So the interesting thing here is that he’s playing into the other narrative that the media doesn’t determine the winner.The problem is that he’s he’s right, he’s just digging a deeper hole into reality.Virginia has gone blue for the past decade, and not by a little. The past 3 presidential elections leaned heavily red in the initial counting, because those small precincts all over the state are able to finish and report quickly. The much larger precincts and counties in Northern Virginia (Loudoun, Fairfax, Arlington, Alexandria, Prince William) as well as Richmond and Chesapeake are heavily blue and take much longer to finish processing. That last 1% of precincts has more than half the vote in the state. This is not unusual.With more mail-in ballots than usual, many states accepting the ballots for as long as a week after the election so long as they’re postmarked before the end of election day. It didn’t help that the GOP sabotaged the post office, either, disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters.[4][4][4][4] Pennsylvania, in particular, and these legislatures, in particular, made it illegal to validate and count the ballots before the election was over causing this delay in counting.Nothing switched overnight. The ballots were already cast, they were just being counted.The media caused this complaint, and their “calling” of the election doesn’t mean anything, legally. The results are certified by the states and then they send electors to vote officially. Frankly, I think the media should cut the crap with this play-by-play election commentary since it plays right into the hands of those trying to erode trust in the Fourth Estate.We have calculated, and the evidence will show, that there were 682,770 mail-in ballots that were entered into your votes, in just Allegheny County and in Philadelphia, that were not observed by any single Republican.This would be news…if they did have evidence…which they don’t. They’ve repeatedly said they did, but haven’t presented ANY evidence of it. They even removed this part of it (the number of ballots keeps changing daily, as well) from their lawsuits two weeks ago.[5][5][5][5] They’re most likely taking the inch (they found that they were kept too far away) and taking a mile (THEY WEREN’T ALLOWED TO OBSERVE ANYTHING!).[6][6][6][6]Once again, they’ve presented zero, zip, zilch, evidence that 600,000+ ballots were verified without observation.I’ll give you one other enormously puzzling statistic. You sent out in the State of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1,823, 148 absentee or mail-in ballots. You received back 1.4 million, approximately. However, in the count for President, you counted 2.5 million. I don’t know what accounts for that 700,000 difference between the number of ballots you sent out and the number of ballots that ended up in the count. That number, 2,589,242 was on your government website until yesterday. And yesterday, it was removed without explanation.There’s 3 things wrong with this statement:The first number cited was for the primaryThe larger number cited was for the 2020 presidential electionThe numbers weren’t removed from the website (You can see them here: Pennsylvania Elections - Summary Results)I’ll repeat, Both of these different sets of numbers are still on the website and you can see them.Fact check: Pennsylvania mail-in ballot claim mixes primary, general election dataHe throws out a bunch of other numbers:22,686 mail-in ballots that were returned on the day they were mailed. (Pennsylvania allows you to request and submit in person early, no issues there)How about 32,591 were returned the day after they were mailed? (same as above)20,000 were returned before they were mailed (this comes from an “anonymous source” at epoch times (a right wing propaganda source) that posted screenshots of a datasource that’s not available and is formatted improperly from the site…My guess is that there was a placeholder or a clerical data entry error)8,021 ballots from dead people (but then he changes it to 30,000 in the next sentence) A number of news sources have looked into these finding no evidence outside of a few small incidents involving registered Republicans.[7]4,984 mail-in ballots that were never requested. (This is perfectly legal in Pennsylvania for parties to request ballots for people)[8]I can go on. Everything Giuliani brings up in his little tirade is either blatantly false, intentionally misleading, or easily explicable but easy to manipulate for people who refuse to listen.Before I continue, let me remind you: this hearing was held after nearly every single lawsuit was thrown out because there was no evidence of anything wrong. That even their assertion that the observers weren’t able to see things that they initially gave an injunction to allow the observers to be closer, was rejected on appeal because they weren’t restricted arbitrarily, they were restricted by a highly contagious virus that kills or cripples many that are infected.The “hearing” continues with different witnesses, mostly volunteers who were observers.Justin Kweder tries to establish they didn’t have meaningful access to observe things, but, again, the access was there, it was just not over people’s shoulders, and nothing was done in secret. His claims apply to all observers, so shenanigans could have occurred for Trump. Nevermind that the counters are also working in teams to prevent mistakes, as well…I find it disturbing that they’d allege that these volunteers would be able to, and willing to, stuff hundreds of thousands of ballots with hundreds of observers in the room.Kim Peterson makes similar allegations, but is inconsistent claiming that she was either 10, 15, 20, or 200 feet away from people, without mentioning that there were people all around the corral which were 10, 15, or 20 feet away from the people on the other side .She also reveals that there was closed circuit TV on so that the observers could see everything from a distance. She was disappointed in the quality — she just wanted to do her civic duty. The precious snowflake.Let’s summarize, briefly the first two. Some observers were far away from some of the counters…but there were cameras and monitors all over so that you can see everything.Leah Hoops says this:Not only was private grant money used from the center for tech and life owned by Google and Mark Zuckerberg, but pop-up voter sites were also approved. These pop-up voter sites were placed in heavily Democrat cities, including Chester and Upper Darby, Pennsylvania, in which case the grant money from the CTCL was used to pay for electioneering. It was literally a one-stop shop. Walk in, apply, get your ballot, submit, and you were out the door. But where this didn’t take place was in heavily Republican and independent areas.The reality is that areas with lots of people tend to be blue, proportionately. Areas with fewer people proportionally tend to be red. If you were going to put a pop up location anywhere, why would you put it in the middle of a cow pasture?Her complaints might be true, but they’re founded in nonsense, like arguing that Gravity isn’t fair.We have signed affidavits under penalty of perjury, which should be consideration enough to know that this is a very serious issueJust because you tell the truth doesn’t make it relevant. Her claims about not being able to observe were heard but dismissed after initially granting an injunction. The distance was not arbitrary, and accomodations were made for access.She also claims that they weren’t able to see the ballot signature validation room until an injunction was put in place. I found no record of any such injunction, unless she’s referring to the injunction that was put in place requiring them to be allowed within 6 feet, that was then rescinded on appeal.[9][9][9][9]Gregory Stenstrom did his best to be charming, but starts off saying it was his first time. He claims to have memorized the process manual, but he clearly skipped the training session.First, he claims they gave actual ballots instead of provisional ballots to people who claimed that they had requested mail in ballots. He doesn’t understand the process because if they had shown up as requesting mail in ballots, they would have been in the database. They didn’t, so they got actual ballots. Never mind this contradicts what other poll watchers saw regarding the treatment of black voters.[10][10][10][10]Then he claims that he wasn’t allowed into the counting center at first, which is valid because you have to be certified to be allowed in. Remember the chaos in at the Michigan counting facility when people not authorized to be there tried to storm in?He then claims there was a “forensically destructive process” with how the ballots were coming in…making claims that people “weren’t observed” and USB drives were being shuffled around. Ballots being moved around, votes being updated (50,000 for biden…because they organize the ballots and then run them…). He claimed that he spoke with a sheriff and the sheriff did nothing.He constantly makes emotional appeals and seems interested in the process…but rather than actually be a part of the process he’d rather “just ask questions.” — A key tactic in spreading conspiracy theories. His entire testimony seemed to revolve around ignorance of the process and drawing long conclusions from incomplete understandings of what was going on.The star witness seems to be Colonel Phil Waldron. He claimed no expertise or evidence or observation of the counting process, so he had no way to make any real claims about observers, but that didn’t stop him from continuing the claims the other witnesses made. He did claim expertise in information warfare that he took part in towards the end of his 30 year career.Consider a Colonel to be similar to a Project Manager at a very large company. They usually have several teams working underneath them and they’re either happy where they are, they’re not driven enough to advance, or not political enough…or they’re just not good enough. When you get to that point you’re in charge of people that know what they’re talking about and you just have to have a vague sense of it, it’s not required that you actually be or have the qualifications of a white hat hacker…and it shows in his testimony that he’s been at a distance from this stuff.He was clearly brought in by Trump's team and nearly everything he says is irrelevant and speculative. He claims, without evidence, for example, that 600,000 ballots were counted without observation. He insinuates, that the late Hugo Chavez had his undead hands on this election.I know there have been statements to the contrary but I personally debriefed the son of a Cuban intelligence officer who had first hand knowledge of Hugo Chavez’s family members who told him not to worry about the populous threat against Maduro’s election in Venezuela.Actual people that were able to analyze these things and verify the machines were trustworthy didn’t find anything…but Mr. Waldron personally could talk to people who guaranteed it. And let’s be clear, he’s tracing this “DNA” history back to before 2010…6 years before Trump won in Pennsylvania and many other states that use the same machines.All of this is similarly pointless conjecture since we have the paper ballots that we can audit.He says some things that make someone at all familiar with security wonder about his qualifications:And just so you probably all are aware, on 30 September, an election storage facility was robbed in your state. 30 USB devices were stolen and a laptop. Those USB devices more than likely had encryption devices and you just heard another previous witness talk about the nonstandard use of the USB storage devices.Yes, a facility was robbed. No, the USB devices didn’t have nonsensical “Encryption devices” on them, they had ballot layout templates for the machines to be programmed.[11][11][11][11] The machines are all sealed and those layouts are easily acquired elsewhere. The ballot layouts are also public information that are mailed out to everyone in advance of even the ballots being mailed out for remote voting.As a matter of fact, one of our white hat hackers previously discovered a malware that’s present on the servers that captures every log in and every password of every operator down to the precinct level that logs into one of these systems. That’s just like giving the password to your bank account out, putting it on the dark web. It’s not going to be there very long.There’s no context here. “Previously” could mean any time before hand. It looks like he hasn’t touched these things since 2010…They’ve most likely updated these servers since then, and if they found this “a malware” (No one talks like this in infosec circles) they probably fixed it…but we don’t know. But because of the way that he talks about these things it’s clear that he doesn’t have much insight and is simply trying to “just ask questions”.There’s a manufacturer specified rate of speed that a number of ballots can be imaged and processed. These spike anomalies in this chart really show where for us to look forensically to actually determine what happened with these votes. Our team has looked at these systems and there are a dozen ways to interdict the voting process, whether it’s mail in ballot manipulations, they can scan and allocate blank votes, whether it was a 70,000 votes left in the back room. There’s just lots of ways to interdict these systems.It’s like he doesn’t understand that:They don’t have to upload them as they run the ballotsThey can have more than one machine goingThey can release the reports whenever they feel like itMost of those votes are mail in ballots which haven’t been used to this extent in previous elections due to obvious circumstances, so this process is going to be differentThese aren’t votes coming in…these are votes that are being counted. There’s nothing unusual about this other than the fact that Pennsylvania didn’t allow early ballot counting to take place.This is just a purported “expert” “just asking questions” and sowing distrust.Gary Phelman says he has a “poll watcher’s certificate” that he says is good in every location in Philadelphia. He said he was denied entry. He claims it’s because his was yellow. He tries to claim they weren’t wearing masks, he definitely wasn’t wearing his bandana properly, however. A video of his encounter was here:A poll watcher in Philly was just wrongfully prevented from entering the polling place#StopTheSteal pic.twitter.com/iJTFtRk0Id— Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) November 3, 2020Even though he is complaining about this now, it was cleared up pretty quickly:(Feeley is a spokesperson for the city commissioners) More on this can be seen here: Right-wing propagandists try to concoct a Philadelphia election scandalThis was an isolated incident that was cleared up on election day…yet here he is testifying about it.Dave Stisogis testified about a few things. He’s a lawyer and worked on campaigns for several candidates as well as running for office several times.First he complained about the processes and rule changes and how difficult it was for him to get people accredited (which applies to both sides).Then he talked about how he was observing the mail in ballot process about how they were separating the secrecy envelopes from the ballots with the cutting machines.His entire testimony can pretty much be summed up with this sentence:We had really no concept of what was going onThe Dunning-Kruger was strong with this one. He uses his credentials to imply that he is familiar with how it should work without establishing that he actually understands how it should work before saying flat out here that he doesn’t and has no intention of learning.At one point he called the fact that they had to “flatten out ballots” “obscene.” Which is a very…bizarre term for it. He says:People would come in with big armloads of ballots from the other room. Apparently with no providence, no explanation of where they came fromThis has been debunked to death. It’s a multistep process with observers at every step. Just because you can’t see everything doesn’t mean there isn’t meaningful access to it. If you did “have a concept of what was going on” you probably wouldn’t have expected it to be narrarrated to you.But there was absolutely no providence to what was going onHe likes the word providence.I had about 25 other affidavits from other folks that had joined me during the time that had been part of this that describe essentially the same thing over there in Allegheny County, most of whom were attorneys and had been versed on the comings and goings of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which I might suggest, ultimately, the last decision in recanvassing when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ultimately said that it doesn’t matter how far you’re away from the ballots because you don’t have the right to challenge anything, anyway. I read the opinion, and I said to myself, “The Pennsylvania Supreme Court just called off elections in the state of Pennsylvania.”Again, a sworn affidavit might mean that you’re telling the truth, but it doesn’t make it relevant. Just because you’re a lawyer doesn’t mean that you have any insight into how elections work behind the scenes…and I’ve linked to the decision [9], and it doesn’t say what he claims.Next we have Elizabeth Preate Harvey who is full of softball concerns about the process, all of which are rehashes of what’s already been said and completely ephemeral.First, the Montgomery County Republican Committee was not provided meaningful view of the mail-in ballots at any time, despite our requests. Second, we were not provided with regular, detailed information about the mail-in ballots over the course of the election, despite our requests. Third, we still lack complete and detailed information about these ballots despite our written requests.I mean, this is, frankly all bullshit. Mail-in ballots are the same as in person ballots, except with secrecy envelopes. Sample ballots are mailed out prior to the mail in ballots.Second, as testified, you have observers all over the place. The “regular, detailed information” is likely not something that you’re entitled to, however much you wish you were.Third, Public information is available on the Pennsylvania secretary of state website.Since the election, we have received many calls and emails from Republicans with questions about whether their mail-in ballot was counted, expressing concerns that they didn’t request a mail-in ballot, but received one, anyway, that they were made to vote provisional when they shouldn’t have, that they have great concerns about the efficacy of this election.They can check that by calling their office. Clerks all over the country are friendly and very helpful.As touched on above, the Republican party likely requested one on their behalf which is completely legal in PennsylvaniaProvisional ballots are counted if they’re deemed legitimate to vote.In order for this country to have trust in the electoral process, elections must be viewed as open and transparent.I agree, and with social media, and media coverage, this has been the most transparent election in the history of the country.Julie Vahey was the Executive Director of the Montgomery County Republican Committee. She claims no one was allowed to see the mail in verification area…yet the lawsuits never make this assertion.[12][12][12][12]They claim they weren’t close enough to see what was going on. (Neither were the Democratic observers if that was the case). They eventually moved the tables to give better visibility, which she doesn’t mention…just complaints about the process.Over the last ten months, in my role, I’ve spoken to thousands of voters firsthand who have lost faith in the election processes and procedures in Montgomery County and across Pennsylvania as a whole.Over the last ten months…That’s waaaaay before Trump started complaining about mail in ballots. That’s back in February even before the lockdowns hit. That’s a really bizarre time frame.Next we have Barbara Sulitka who is basically an elderly voter and her daughter Cheryl Nudo and son-in-law Charles who is helping her testify. Barbara thinks her vote didn’t count since she got a print out that didn’t have Trump on it. Cheryl thinks scantron forms are a form of voter suppression because old people don’t get technology. (seriously).I’ve never gotten a receipt of who I voted for, and the only thing I could find is that if you did a provisional ballot they give you the id of that ballot so you can track it.[13][13][13][13]Then we have Olivia Jane Winters who told a long tale about how the Chief of elections might have voted twice.Finally we had Gloria Lee Snover who testified that Mail-in ballots were new and confusing…She claimed that they didn’t have access to observe them (which would have been illegal, so why they didn’t file suit about that is strange) and that, without evidence, claimed Democrats had more access and information than she did.Then Trump came on and rambled for 10 minutes adding no evidence to the table since he wasn’t there and had no visibility or expertise on the matter.They let the audience chant “Trump” in a cult-like manner for 5 minutes.The Chairman then pats himself on the back:I think what you’ve just heard guarantees that a hundred years from now, that this is the most important public hearing ever held by this Senate committee.and they lob it back to Trump’s lawyers, who botch the numbers to make it seem like they’re going to flip the election because of all of this pretend fraud.This fake hearing was more like cult-ritual. There were no Democrats present, no testimony from the election officials (many of whom were Republicans), no testimony from anyone but the select few that could try to confirm their biases.The people present were not under oath and some of their testimonies were different from their sworn affidavits. Many of them weren’t trained.The numbers provided were wrong. Their experts weren’t experts.The goal of this is to build up a wall of “Just Asking Questions” and pile on more and more innuendo to try to make it seem like there’s smoke, and therefore fire. Upon closer examination, it’s all just steam. These implications are like a hydra, designed so that if you cut one head off, 2 more pop in their place. Such that books have to be written that no one will read to debunk it all.This is like a travelling revival show. The purpose was to sell snake oil.The only thing that will come of it is more donations to help Trump pay back his debts.Some more viral misinformation debunking:Tracking Viral Misinformation About the 2020 ElectionFootnotes[1] Stacking the deck: How the GOP works to suppress minority voting[1] Stacking the deck: How the GOP works to suppress minority voting[1] Stacking the deck: How the GOP works to suppress minority voting[1] Stacking the deck: How the GOP works to suppress minority voting[2] Absentee ballot dispute reaches Court - SCOTUSblog[2] Absentee ballot dispute reaches Court - SCOTUSblog[2] Absentee ballot dispute reaches Court - SCOTUSblog[2] Absentee ballot dispute reaches Court - SCOTUSblog[3] Carter Center Statement on Voting by Mail for 2020 U.S. Elections[3] Carter Center Statement on Voting by Mail for 2020 U.S. Elections[3] Carter Center Statement on Voting by Mail for 2020 U.S. Elections[3] Carter Center Statement on Voting by Mail for 2020 U.S. Elections[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/11/05/usps-late-ballots-election/[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/11/05/usps-late-ballots-election/[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/11/05/usps-late-ballots-election/[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/11/05/usps-late-ballots-election/[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-lawsuit-pennsylvania/2020/11/15/4aab8048-279b-11eb-9b14-ad872157ebc9_story.html[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-lawsuit-pennsylvania/2020/11/15/4aab8048-279b-11eb-9b14-ad872157ebc9_story.html[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-lawsuit-pennsylvania/2020/11/15/4aab8048-279b-11eb-9b14-ad872157ebc9_story.html[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-lawsuit-pennsylvania/2020/11/15/4aab8048-279b-11eb-9b14-ad872157ebc9_story.html[6] Trump lawsuit seeks to block certification of votes in Allegheny, Philadelphia counties[6] Trump lawsuit seeks to block certification of votes in Allegheny, Philadelphia counties[6] Trump lawsuit seeks to block certification of votes in Allegheny, Philadelphia counties[6] Trump lawsuit seeks to block certification of votes in Allegheny, Philadelphia counties[7] Man arrested for voter fraud in Luzerne County[8] Your Pa. election questions answered: I received a mail-in ballot application but never requested one. What should I do?[9] https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000176-0ae5-d692-a977-1effb4f90000[9] https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000176-0ae5-d692-a977-1effb4f90000[9] https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000176-0ae5-d692-a977-1effb4f90000[9] https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000176-0ae5-d692-a977-1effb4f90000[10] Being a poll observer in West Philly made me really angry. Here’s why. | Opinion[10] Being a poll observer in West Philly made me really angry. Here’s why. | Opinion[10] Being a poll observer in West Philly made me really angry. Here’s why. | Opinion[10] Being a poll observer in West Philly made me really angry. Here’s why. | Opinion[11] Memory sticks used to program Philly’s voting machines were stolen from elections warehouse[11] Memory sticks used to program Philly’s voting machines were stolen from elections warehouse[11] Memory sticks used to program Philly’s voting machines were stolen from elections warehouse[11] Memory sticks used to program Philly’s voting machines were stolen from elections warehouse[12] Poll watchers emerge as a flashpoint in battle over ballots[12] Poll watchers emerge as a flashpoint in battle over ballots[12] Poll watchers emerge as a flashpoint in battle over ballots[12] Poll watchers emerge as a flashpoint in battle over ballots[13] Election 2020 in Pennsylvania: All of your voting questions, answered | Spotlight PA[13] Election 2020 in Pennsylvania: All of your voting questions, answered | Spotlight PA[13] Election 2020 in Pennsylvania: All of your voting questions, answered | Spotlight PA[13] Election 2020 in Pennsylvania: All of your voting questions, answered | Spotlight PA

Quick answer: about a thousand men on paper if it was a single-battalion regiment. In practice on active service, about 600–650 or so.Many regiments had two battalions, so were twice that size; but the battalions almost always operated separately, not together.In 1808, at the start of the Peninsular War, the British Army had 103 regiments of line infantry. Just under two thirds of these (61) had two battalions, while the other third (37) only had one battalion each. Three regiments were unusually large: two with 3 and one with 4 battalions.Before the Napoelonic Wars broke out virtually every British regiment had only a single battalion. The need to rapidly expand the army was met by having most regiments recruit and train a second battalion; but those which happened to be stationed overseas at the time did not do so.There were in addition two Rifle Regiments, one (the 95th) with 3 and the other (the 60th) with 7 battalions.There were also three Foot Guards regiments, the 1st, Coldstream, and 3rd. (By tradition the Coldstream Guards refused to respond to the designation '2nd Regiment': they were "second to none".)The Guards regiments were not officially divided into battalions, but the 1st Regiment of Foot Guards was over three times larger than a normal single-battalion regiment, and the others were twice as large, so in practice they normally formed several battalions in the field.If a regiment had more than one battalion, these were normally deployed separately — sometimes on different continents. The practice of one battalion staying at home to recruit and train replacement troops, which were then sent out to the other battalion on active service, was sometimes followed; but it did not become systematic and regular until later on during the Victorian period. During the Napoleonic Wars, every battalion needed to be available to serve in combat.Since regiments varied in size so much, it was the battalion that was considered the basic administrative and tactical unit.A battalion was normally divided into ten companies: eight 'centre' companies and two 'flank' companies. (Badly understrength units sometimes had fewer companies.) In line infantry battalions, the company positioned on the right flank was designated the 'grenadier company' and that on the left the 'light company'. Where possible the largest and strongest soldiers of the regiment were assigned as grenadiers and the smallest and quickest as light infantry.These companies could then be assigned to special duties as needed — close assault of enemy positions in the case of the grenadiers and scouting and skirmishing in the case of light infantry — but in Napoleonic times their weapons and equipment were usually no different to those of the regular line infantry. (There was, however, a special 'light musket' which was lighter in weight than the standard pattern, and fitted with a backsight.)Rifle regiments and specially designated 'light infantry' battalions did not make this distinction; in effect all their soldiers were considered light infantry. Rifle regiments were, of course, armed with rifles rather than muskets.Confusingly, the British Army in this period did not have a single, standardised template of the authorised strength of an infantry battalion. Each individual unit had its own unique organisation, which was carefully recorded in ledgers in the War Office. That said, the rule of thumb was that a battalion at full strength should have approximately 1,000 soldiers, not including officers. In practice, on active service regiments tended to be much smaller than this. At Waterloo the average size of a British line battalion was 630 men.A line infantry battalion normally had a battalion headquarters, comprising 13-15 officers and sergeants, and ten companies, which could vary from 47 to 134 persons each at full strength. As a shorthand, the battalion strength would be summarised as "ten companies each of n privates", where n could be anything from 38 to 114. Corporals were included with privates under the term 'rank and file', and a battalion might also be summarised as having, say, "60 rank and file per company" (which would be 57 privates and 3 corporals) or "100 rank and file per company" (95 privates and 5 corporals). The number of higher ranks was generally more standardised per battalion.As a detailed example, the 1st Battalion of the 1st Regiment of Foot (the Royals) was one of the larger battalions, with a paper strength on 25 December 1808 of 10 companies each of 95 privates (100 rank and file per company), and a total manpower, including both officers and men, of 1,126 personnel.Battalion headquarters (14)1 colonel, 1 lieutenant-colonel, 2 majors, 1 paymaster, 1 adjutant, 1 quartermaster, 1 surgeon, 2 assistant surgeons (total 10 officers). 1 sergeant major, 1 quartermaster sergent, 1 pay sergeant, 1 armourer sergeant (total 4 NCOs)Only the 1st battalion of each regiment had a colonel; the 2nd and subsequent battalions were commanded by a lieutenant-colonel, so their HQ strength was one less. In practice, the position of colonel of a regiment was a nominal one, and the person holding that title rarely served with his unit.Prior to 1802 battalions had two lieutenant-colonels; after that date the authorised number was reduced to one, but the change was introduced gradually and progressively rather than immediately.In 1811 each battalion was also assigned a schoolmaster sergeant at its HQ.Each company (nine companies each of 111 and one of 113)1 captain, 2 lieutenants, 1 ensign, 5 sergeants, 5 corporals, 2 drummers, 95 private soldiers.The two flank companies (grenadiers and light infantry) had an extra lieutenant instead of an ensign, making 22 lieutenants and 8 ensigns in the battalion as a whole.The grenadier company had 2 fifers as well as 2 drummers, giving it an authorised strength of two more than the other companies. In 1810 one drummer per battalion was given the rank of drum major (ranking equal to a sergeant).In 1813 the senior sergeant in each company was given the rank of colour sergeant.On 25 December 1808 the total authorised strength of the British Army line infantry battalions was as follows:14 battalions with 1200 rank and file59 battalions with 1000 rank and file44 battalions with 800 rank and file37 battalions with 600 rank and file22 battalions with 400 rank and file1 battalion even smaller than thatThat's a total of 177 battalions of which 64 were on home service (stationed in the British Isles) and 113 overseas.As for the Guards, the 1st Regiment of Foot Guards in 1808 had no fewer than 32 companies of 130 rank and file each (132 in its four grenadier companies) and a total establishment of 143/145 people per company, plus 38 in the headquarters. The other two Guards regiments had 20 companies of the same size, and 25 personnel in their headquarters.The Guards regiments tended to see their individual companies as deployable units which could be assigned missions separately or combined into composite units as required, as opposed to line battalions where a company was merely an administrative subdivision of the primary tactical unit. As mentioned before, the Guards had no official battalion structure, but the 1st Guards with its 32 companies could put together up to three battalion-equivalent composite units when required; and the other two regiments two each.The King's German Legion was recruited from former members of the army of Hanover after that country, which was in personal union with the British monarchy, was conquered by France. It was considered an integral part of the British Army, though staffed by German-speakers. By 1805 the KGL included ten infantry battalions each with eight companies of 100 rank and file each. In 1811 that was increased to ten companies each; in 1815 it was reduced down to six companies per battalion as many of the experienced officers and NCOs were released to rejoin the army of newly-liberated Hanover. Nominally, the KGL did not have distinct centre, grenadier and light companies, though it seems that at least some of the battalions did organise themselves this way (and equipped their light companies with rifles, not merely muskets).Cavalry regiments were more standardised than the infantry, though there were still variations.The British Army during the Napoleonic Wars fielded 7 regiments of Dragoon Guards, 5 regiments of Dragoons, 19 regiments of Light Dragoons (total 31 dragoon regiments), 3 regiments of the Household Cavalry, and six regiments of foreign cavalry in British service (of which five were in the KGL, the other from Brunswick). The term 'dragoon' no longer had the connotation of mounted infantry it had once possessed two centuries earlier; in British usage it had become simply a generic title for cavalry units.Cavalry, unlike infantry, did not have a separate battalion organisation; the regiment was the basic unit. Each regiment was divided into an HQ plus a number of troops, the troop being the equivalent of an infantry company. Most regiments had ten troops from 1805 to 1814, when the number was reduced to 8 per regiment. A few regiments had 12 troops. A typical regiment had 80 rank and file per troop, though this could range from 40 to 110.Here is a detailed breakdown of a typical cavalry regiment of ten troops each of 80 rank and file, with 905 personnel in total:Headquarters (15)1 colonel, 2 lieutenant-colonels, 2 majors, 1 paymaster, 1 adjutant, 1 surgeon, 2 assistant surgeons, 1 veterinary surgeon (total 11 officers). 1 regimental sergeant major, 1 pay sergeant, 1 armourer sergeant, 1 saddler sergeant (total 4 NCOs)As with infantry, the position of colonel was honorary and he did not normally deploy with the regiment. In 1809 a quartermaster was also assigned to each cavalry regiment, and in 1811 a schoolmaster sergeant.Each troop (ten troops each of 89)1 captain, 1 lieutenant, 1 cornet, 1 troop quartermaster, 4 sergeants, 4 corporals, 1 trumpeter, 76 private troopers.By contrast to the Foot Guards, the mounted guards of the Household Cavalry had fewer soldiers per regiment than the line regiments, not more. In 1808 the 1st and 2nd Life Guards had six troops of 58 rank and file each, while the Royal Horse Guards had eight troops of 54 rank and file each. In 1812 the authorised strength of each regiment was increased by two troops each; a total of 12 troops of Household Cavalry (four from each regiment) was sent to the Peninsula to serve under Wellington, while the strength remaining at home was increased to 14 troops in totalIn 1805 the King's German Legion had five cavalry regiments (two heavy dragoons and three light dragoons, later renamed hussars), each organised with 8 troops of 76 rank and file each. In 1811 this was increased to 10 troops of 80 rank and file; the numbers were decreased again in 1814. By the Waterloo campaign the KGL's cavalry had three regiments with 10 troops of 60, one regiment with 10 troops of 80 and one with 12 troops of 80.As for artillery, the Royal Artillery comprised eight foot battalions in 1805, increased to ten by 1808. A battalion had 12 headquarters personnel and ten companies. However, battalions did not serve together as a unit; each company was deployed separately. It should also be noted that British Army practice at this time was to hold artillery in a central pool and assign cannons to artillery companies as needed, rather than each unit having its own permanent and integral artillery. A company plus its allocated guns was referred to as a 'brigade of artillery'; the term 'battery' was also used, though at this point in time was not official in the British Army. A brigade of artillery in the British Army was normally assigned six cannons.A Foot Artillery Company of the Royal Artillery as of 1808 comprised the following:1 captain, 1 second captain, 2 first lieutenants, 1 second lieutenant, 4 sergeants, 4 corporals, 9 bombardiers, 3 drummers, 123 gunners. Total 5 officers, 4 sergeants, 139 rank and file, grand total 148 personnel.There was also a Corps of Royal Artillery Drivers, who provided the wagons and horses needed to pull the guns and ammunition, and the necessary support personnel such as farriers, blacksmiths and carpenters. This was meant to be a central pool of skilled personnel who could be allocated to individual companies as necessary -- as many as 60 or 70 of them for a unit deployed in the field. In practice this turned out to be a poor arrangement; drivers assigned to an artillery brigade had a separate chain of command, but this was unable to maintain control over its widely-scattered personnel, so discipline suiffered. During the Peninsular Campaign the RAD was notorious for absenteeism and drunkenness among its personnel.The Royal Horse Artillery was in total equivalent to a single RA battalion, and was divided into ten troops, each equivalent to a foot artillery company. Unlike the foot artillery, the RHA had its own integral drivers and support staff.A troop of the Royal Horse Artillery as of 1808 comprised:1 captain, 1 captain-lieutenant, 3 first lieutenants, 2 staff sergeants, 3 sergeants, 4 corporals, 7 bombardiers, 1 trumpeter, 2 farriers, 1 shoeing smith, 2 collar makers, 1 wheelwright, 54 mounted gunners, 42 dismounted gunners, 58 drivers. Total 182 all ranks per troop. The 'dismounted' personnel rode on the gun limbers and ammunition wagons.The King's German Legion in 1806 had two troops of horse artillery and four brigades of foot artillery (3 light, 1 heavy). Unlike British practice, they allocated cannons permanently to each unit, hence why they are called 'brigades' rather than 'companies'. A KGL troop of horse artillery had a strength of 185 all ranks, the three light brigades had 160 and the heavy brigade 193.

You don’t say so, but the beginning of your question implies that you are asking about mail ballots. So, here’s a little insight into state of the art today in terms of mail ballots:You have to request one unless you live in a handful of states that do “universal” mail ballots (some of which have been doing it for decades, so they have a pretty good system).Absentee ballot requests are not controlled in any way until they are received at the elections office. Then your request is checked against records (including comparing signature against your voter registration signature). Most states do allow disabled and elderly to get on a “permanent” mail ballot list; but they still have to request it.In my state, that I have requested a mail ballot is visible to me at a web site; it shows that the request was received, that it was accepted, and that a ballot was mailed out.The ballot package is printed with my name and address, a unique bar code, and several other codes that are used for sorting and checking.I have a choice of mailing the ballot back, dropping my ballot in a ballot-only drop box, or turning it in at a polling or early voting location. In all cases, the date that my ballot was received is recorded and visible on the web site.When the rules of the state allow it, my ballot is then “processed” which means doing everything but counting it — checking to see that the envelope wasn’t tampered with, tracking the date arrived (e.g., and checking postmarks if that is relevant), checking that the envelope is filled out properly, and doing the signature check. The fact that my ballot has been processed is visible on the web site, and if there are problems that is indicated as well. This means that I can see if there was a problem with my ballot being accepted and contact them to “cure” that problem.Timing varies by state, but at some point, the ballot itself (usually in an internal sealed envelope) is separated from the outer enveloped (where you signed it), and made ready to tabulate. Tabulation is done in batches, and how the batches are organized depends on the requirements of the scanners. Creating the batches also means making sure that they are in good condition so they will go through the scanner without problems. Ballots that can’t be scanned are diverted to a separate flow that hand-counts them (two folks count each and they must agree).When my ballot is separated from the outer envelope and sent to be tabulated, that date is recorded on the web site. Some states allow for the ballots to be scanned before election day, but the results are kept secret until they can be added to the running tally on election day. Others don’t count anything until 7am, or noon, or the polls close, etc. It varies.Remember that there are commonly dozens of different specific ballot forms in a given decent sized county because of local differences. My general election ballot here in Georgia had 30 items on it; a half-mile away, my friends have a different ballot because they are in a different county council district.And, the ballots are marked for machine reading and checking of values; if those aren’t readable by the scanner, then the scanner would not use the proper template to determine the value on an item. Just having one more or one less item can result in a visibly different format for a ballot. One way to manage this is to use different colors of envelopes, of paper, and even different sizes. Election workers want to have the scans run right the first time, so they use visual cues, physical layout, separation of tasks, status recording, and documented processes and procedures to manage the process. Those procedures are specific normally to a given state, but could actually vary by county in states where counties provide their own voting machines/scanners.And, along the way, there are ‘balance’ checks where quantities in/out are matched and processes stopped and redone until they can be reconciled.And, you can tell from the above, that it wouldn’t work to fake serial numbers; in fact, because federal elections are not separate from state and local elections, it is very difficult to introduce a large number of ballots at all.Most of this is very boring to describe, so if you are curious, try reading the election manual for your state. Even better, volunteer to work in an election (you’ll get paid); there will be training provided.By the way, Colorado uses the same technology that Amazon uses to allow you to track your mail ballot coming to you and being returned.So: all ballots are personalized to an individual at a specific address, and most are bar coded. Scanner technologies go through set-ups and checks to make sure that they are working correctly before being used. Error logs are kept as well by the machines, and paper records tracking what goes in and out.I have even heard of analyses that look at the “drop off” rate down the ballot. You won’t be surprised to find out that the first races get more votes than the last ones, and that major races get more votes than minor ones. With all the data now available, tracking drop-off patterns is another way to look for problems with ballot handling, potential fraud, errors in ballot machine markings, and scanning problems.I know there are people here on Quora who have extensive experience running elections. I hope that they can add to this very general story (or correct me if I wrote something misleading or wrong).