Who cares if there are isolated cases of fraud/irregularities?

I'll wait to see what comes out of the audits.....over the guy making his first post. 

You seriously registered just to post this?

Why should we believe the results of an "investigation" by a partisan-based and funded organization that I previously showed was not qualified to do this, whose leader has ties to stop the steal nonsense, all conducted in secrecy (trade secrets!) using "lasers" to see if ballots had been folded in a location outside the state of Arizona with no oversight?

I "heard" they are replacing the real ones with fake ones that haven't been folded.  Prove me wrong.  See how ridiculous that sounds?

Rog, you originally dismissed my objection to the credentials (or lack thereof) of the auditing company, stating you could judge their conclusions.  So they say fraud occurred - what are your criteria by which you make your assessment?

My work is audited all the time....who's isn't? 

Complete and thorough audits should happen in random cities after every election.  Unless you want to pretend voter fraud doesn't exist.  LMAO

Why just cities...so you're saying people in the country can't commit fraud? 

I'm quite sure voter fraud (and probably more so, human error) exists on a small scale, and would welcome an independent commission with established, well-accepted means of auditing (like real auditors do) with clear guidelines on thresholds, etc.  Oh WAIT, they already do that!

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/post-election-audits635926066.aspx

Excerpt (there's a table at the bottom of the web page with details on what every state does):

Traditional Post-Election Audits: Most audits look at a fixed percentage of voting districts or voting machines (see table below for details) and compare the paper record to the results produced by the voting system. Even in a landslide election, they will count the same number of ballots as they would in a nail-biter election. 

• 34 states and DC require a traditional post-election audit: Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, California (counties have the option of conducting a risk-limiting audit), Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey (although the state currently does not have machines that produce a paper record and therefore cannot yet meet this requirement), New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio (risk-limiting audits are recommended but not required), Oklahoma, Oregon (counties have the option of conducting a risk-limiting audit), Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington (counties have the option of conducting a risk-limiting audit), West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Traditional post-election audits are usually conducted manually by hand counting a portion of the paper records and comparing them to the electronic results produced by an electronic voting machine. However, some states have a process by which some or all of the audit can be conducted electronically. This may be done with the assistance of a computer or a tabulation device other than the one that was initially used to tabulate results. And, some traditional post-election audits use a "tiered" system, which means a different number of ballots are reviewed, depending on the margin of victory.