In a shocking turn of events, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is in panic mode over the decision made by two Wisconsin towns, Thornapple and Lawrence, to count their 2024 election ballots by hand. The towns have opted to forgo the use of electronic voting machines, a move that has triggered a response from Merrick Garland’s mafia.
The DOJ has sent a threatening letter to the town officials, warning them against authorizing the hand counting of ballots. This move has raised concerns about the integrity of the election process and the potential for fraud in the upcoming election.
The decision to count ballots by hand has sparked a heated debate among residents of Thornapple and Lawrence, with some arguing that hand counting is more accurate and secure than relying on electronic voting machines. Others believe that the use of technology is essential to ensuring a smooth and efficient election process.
Despite the controversy surrounding the issue, the town officials remain steadfast in their decision to proceed with hand counting the ballots. They have cited concerns about the reliability of electronic voting machines and the need to maintain the integrity of the election process as reasons for their choice.
The DOJ’s response to the decision made by Thornapple and Lawrence has only served to escalate tensions and deepen the divide between those in favor of hand counting and those in favor of electronic voting machines. The threat issued by Merrick Garland’s mafia has further fueled suspicions about the motives behind the push for electronic voting machines.
As the 2024 election draws nearer, the residents of Thornapple and Lawrence find themselves caught in the crossfire of a heated debate over the best way to ensure a fair and transparent election process. The DOJ’s intervention has only added to the uncertainty and confusion surrounding the upcoming election.
In the midst of all the chaos and controversy, one thing remains clear: the residents of Thornapple and Lawrence are determined to see their voices heard and their votes counted. Whether through hand counting or electronic voting machines, they are committed to upholding the democratic process and ensuring a free and fair election.
As the battle over how to count the ballots rages on, one thing is certain: the eyes of the nation are on Thornapple and Lawrence. The outcome of this dispute could have far-reaching implications for the future of elections in Wisconsin and beyond. Only time will tell how this showdown between tradition and technology will ultimately unfold.
BREAKING: The DOJ is in PANIC mode that Wisconsin towns Thornapple and Lawrence have chosen to count their 2024 election ballots by hand without the use of electronic voting machines
Merrick Garland's mafia sent a letter to the town officials, THREATENING them by “authorizing
BREAKING: The DOJ is in PANIC mode that Wisconsin towns Thornapple and Lawrence have chosen to count their 2024 election ballots by hand without the use of electronic voting machines
Merrick Garland’s mafia sent a letter to the town officials, THREATENING them by “authorizing… pic.twitter.com/AHWLdqPtf8
— George (@BehizyTweets) August 29, 2024
BREAKING: The DOJ is in PANIC mode that Wisconsin towns Thornapple and Lawrence have chosen to count their 2024 election ballots by hand without the use of electronic voting machines
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is in a state of panic as two Wisconsin towns, Thornapple and Lawrence, have decided to count their 2024 election ballots by hand, eschewing the use of electronic voting machines. This decision has raised concerns among federal officials, who have sent a letter to the town officials threatening them with legal action. But why is the DOJ so worried about this seemingly innocuous choice by these small towns? Let’s delve deeper into the implications of this decision and why it has sparked such a strong reaction from the federal government.
Why is hand-counting ballots a cause for concern?
Hand-counting ballots may seem like a quaint and old-fashioned way of tallying election results, but in today’s digital age, it has raised eyebrows among federal officials. The use of electronic voting machines has become the norm in most modern elections, as they are seen as a more efficient and accurate way of counting votes. However, the reliance on these machines has also raised concerns about potential hacking and tampering, leading some to advocate for a return to hand-counted paper ballots as a more secure alternative.
In the case of Thornapple and Lawrence, their decision to count ballots by hand has been seen as a direct challenge to the status quo of using electronic voting machines. This has put them at odds with federal authorities, who are now scrambling to prevent what they see as a dangerous precedent that could spread to other towns and states.
What is the DOJ’s response to this decision?
The DOJ’s response to Thornapple and Lawrence’s decision to hand-count their ballots has been swift and forceful. In a letter sent to the town officials, the DOJ warned that their actions could violate federal election laws and threatened legal action if they did not comply with the use of electronic voting machines. This heavy-handed approach has only served to escalate tensions between the federal government and these small towns, who see the hand-counting of ballots as a matter of local control and integrity.
The DOJ’s threat to intervene in the election process of Thornapple and Lawrence has raised concerns about government overreach and the erosion of states’ rights. The use of federal authority to dictate how elections are conducted at the local level has sparked a backlash from residents and officials alike, who see it as a violation of their autonomy and democratic principles.
Why are Thornapple and Lawrence choosing to hand-count their ballots?
Thornapple and Lawrence’s decision to hand-count their ballots is rooted in a desire for transparency and security in the election process. In recent years, there have been growing concerns about the integrity of electronic voting machines and the potential for hacking and tampering. This has led some communities to opt for a more traditional approach to counting votes, using paper ballots and manual tabulation to ensure accuracy and trust in the results.
The residents of Thornapple and Lawrence have expressed a strong preference for hand-counting their ballots, citing concerns about the vulnerability of electronic voting machines to interference and manipulation. By choosing to count their votes by hand, they are taking a stand for the integrity of the election process and asserting their right to conduct elections in a way that they believe is secure and reliable.
What are the implications of this decision for future elections?
The decision by Thornapple and Lawrence to hand-count their ballots could have far-reaching implications for future elections in Wisconsin and beyond. If these towns are successful in conducting a secure and accurate hand count of their votes, it could inspire other communities to follow suit and reconsider the use of electronic voting machines. This could lead to a broader movement towards more transparent and secure election practices, ultimately strengthening the integrity of the democratic process.
On the other hand, if the DOJ is successful in forcing Thornapple and Lawrence to use electronic voting machines, it could set a precedent for federal intervention in local election processes. This could erode states’ rights and local autonomy, undermining the principles of democracy and self-governance. The outcome of this conflict between federal authorities and small towns will have lasting implications for the future of election integrity and the balance of power between local and national government.
In conclusion, the decision by Thornapple and Lawrence to hand-count their 2024 election ballots has sparked a heated debate about the use of electronic voting machines and the role of federal authorities in local election processes. The clash between these small towns and the DOJ highlights larger issues of transparency, security, and autonomy in the electoral system. As this conflict continues to unfold, it will be crucial to monitor the implications for future elections and the broader implications for democracy in the United States.
Sources:
- DOJ Threatens Legal Action Against Wisconsin Towns for Hand-Counting Ballots
- The Case for Hand-Counted Ballots in Modern Elections
- Federal vs. States’ Rights in Election Processes
