> I feel I could accept a result in which there was not some effective pay-ops campaign being run Define "effective". How do you know it was effective? If we i

> I feel I could accept a result in which there was not some effective pay-ops campaign being run Define "effective". How do you know it was effective? If we invalidated results based on some peoples' assumed effectiveness of external interference, we'd invalidate all results. > but cannot accept a result which is “not the will of the people”. How do you define "will of the people"? How do you know that the result is not the will of the people? If another vote comes up and I find significant campaign spending by outsiders, can we assume it was not the will of the people and get another vote? I find the dichotomy strange. On one hand it is said that people are so easily externally influenced, then on the other they assume that the next election that won't be the case. Which is it? Can people be trusted to think for themselves in the face of a constant barrage of "scary EU" or "scary Russia" or not? If you believe they can, you have to accept the results and if you believe they can't, no number of elections will change it.