> If you disagree with that chain of reasoning, what is your disagreement? I don't disagree with this at all. I never said I disagree with the ruling anywhere.

> If you disagree with that chain of reasoning, what is your disagreement? I don't disagree with this at all. I never said I disagree with the ruling anywhere. I am happy the Courts did their job. I am talking about the electoral system not the Courts. I am saying that if it needed a Court to rule that the ballots needed to be discarded then the electoral system, by itself, is not robust enough. Court must be the last resort. Imagine if the Trump legal team hadn't challenged this in the Courts. What would have happened to the ballots? Would have been counted right? The crux of the matter is the subject line: "November 3rd election was the most secure in US election history". Not secure at all if you are changing the rules illegally. The Secretary of State's decision to change rules should have been overturned by the Electoral system itself. It should never have gone to the Courts. It went to the Courts because there was a failure to overturn the decision when it mattered. And think of it this way: It not only doesn't favour Trump but also doesn't favour Biden. Many might have not sent in their ballots on time thinking there is still time (till November 6th). Now have those voters been disenfranchised? > My understanding is that the ballots in question are not part of the current vote count in PA and so this ruling changes nothing with regard to the electoral votes from PA. Yes because those ballots were "not allowed" to be counted. If the Trump legal team hadn't challenged it in courts, it would have been counted inflating the numbers even more. This is just one instance. The more lawsuits are filed the more the mess gets uncovered.