3 ms·

Election fraud requires intent, because honest mistakes would have been caught during the recount process; areas that performed a recount this election fell wit

Election fraud requires intent, because honest mistakes would have been caught during the recount process; areas that performed a recount this election fell within the normal margins for a recount. You have a video of ballot counters counting ballots. That's not incriminating in any way. Anyone who is dissatisfied with this election should logically be dissatisfied with every election, so should pick their battles wisely and attempt to fix the system such that their concerns are possible to alleviate. Raising concerns with this election in particular makes it seem as if this election was in any way exceptional, which except for the candidates, it was not. It's equally concerning whether the 2016 election was legitimate. Or 2012. Or 2008. Or... There is absolutely no tracability on ballots, by design, at this stage. There is no way to prove who voted for whom, due to abuses of this knowledge in the past. There is no proof that can be provided at this point that the election was "legitimate", whatever standard of proof that requires. To provide such proof would require a change to the entire electoral system, and absolutely cannot be done retroactively.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> Election fraud requires intent, because honest mistakes would have been caught during the recount process; The accusation of election fraud requires intent because fraud requires intent. The successful performance of election fraud usually involves not conveying your intent to defraud because then people wouldn't trust your role in the election. > There is absolutely no tracability on ballots, by design, at this stage. Yes, this is why its suspicious that people staged ballots by removing their envelopes, then hid them under a table and waited until the (R) observers had left. So if its known and understood that no one is able to prove that those ballots had a legitimate chain of custody then how are they debunking the allegation that fraud occurred? It sounds like you're saying that the way the system is set up, its not possible to prove that the election was legitimate. > Anyone who is dissatisfied with this election would be impossible to satisfy. Right after you point out that it was designed in a way that would be impossible to verify, you say this.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

> Election fraud requires intent, because honest mistakes would have been caught during the recount process; The accusation of election fraud requires intent because fraud requires intent. The successful performance of election fraud usually involves not conveying your intent to defraud because then people wouldn't trust your role in the election. > There is absolutely no tracability on ballots, by design, at this stage. Yes, this is why its suspicious that people staged ballots by removing their envelopes, then hid them under a table and waited until the (R) observers had left. So if its known and understood that no one is able to prove that those ballots had a legitimate chain of custody then how are they debunking the allegation that fraud occurred? It sounds like you're saying that the way the system is set up, its not possible to prove that the election was legitimate. > Anyone who is dissatisfied with this election would be impossible to satisfy. Right after you point out that it was designed in a way that would be impossible to verify, you say this.