4 ms·

No. When it comes to elections, the burden of proof should always be on those conducting the election that it was done fairly and transparently. Especially if

No. When it comes to elections, the burden of proof should always be on those conducting the election that it was done fairly and transparently. Especially if rules weren't followed to the letter of the law. Moreso where procedures were changed by someone other than the legislature.

arolihas 6y ago
Yes. Innocent until proven guilty. If you are claiming an election was conducted illegitimately then you are accusing multiple election officials of fraud. This requires evidence, something the Trump legal team didn’t have.
- beerandt 6y ago
  Elections are not criminal proceedings. Even civil suits only require a "preponderance of evidence." But elections are not court actions. The results (not the overturning) of elections must be believed to be fair with almost certainly, especially by the losing side.
  - arolihas 6y ago
    I know elections aren’t court proceedings. But if you believe the results are unfair, then you’re implying some crime took place, namely fraud. You can prove that in court with a preponderance of evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt, but Lin Wood and Rudy Giuliani haven’t managed to do either. > The results (not the overturning) of elections must be believed to be fair with almost certainly, especially by the losing side. According to whom? What will make you think this is fair? To me it seems like the only way Trump supporters and Trump will be convinced of the results is if they say he won.
    - beerandt 6y ago
      That a crime occured does not require you to first convict a criminal. And an election that was not properly conducted does not require that a crime be committed.
      - arolihas 6y ago
        Alright, what do you want? Specifically, what will it take for you to believe the results of the presidential, senate, house, and local elections are legitimate?
        beerandt 6y ago
        The rules were there for a good reason. If you follow them, and don't unilaterally change them, this whole mess is avoided. Same goes for everyone refusing audits and 1:1 observers for counting. If you can't agree (legislatively) to rule changes (even in a pandemic) you don't change the rules.
pfdietz 6y ago
So, you're asking your opponents to prove a negative. That's not how election law (or common sense) works. You want to contest the result, it's up to you to provide the evidence strong enough to uphold your objections.
- arolihas 6y ago
  It’s not even how any knowledge in the real world works! These people frustrate me to no end.
- beerandt 6y ago
  No, holding a proper/legal election that is fully transparent and fully observed, without changing rules, disregarding the legislature, etc... precludes the need for any "proof" whatsoever. However, lacking that, yes, the election officials should be made to prove that the procedures that were actually used were fair. It's a retroactive proving of the process. A security audit in light of a system change. If that can be done, there's no need to prove a negative.
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    The rule changes weren't reason to toss out votes. That quibbling that was shot down by judges. In particular, the rule changes were neutral with respect to any candidate. Your objection about the rule changes is, of course, that it allowed more of the wrong kind of people to vote legally. It's naked anti-democratic BS, attempting to masquerade as a valid concern.
    - arolihas 6y ago
      I think these guys are genuinely concerned, which is sad because this means they are completely off their rocker. Check out this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25695661 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25695661 Complete nonsense that somehow manages to stay somewhat intelligible.
    - beerandt 6y ago
      The constitution clearly says the election shall be held via methods as prescribed by the state legislators. Disagreements between branches of state government should have defaulted to the legislature, but didn't in most of the states in question. Especially true in PA, where the legislature specifically voted against implementing the same rules that the court then imposed anyway. Even worse, they ignored Alito's court order to segregate ballots. (Which admittedly ended up being a moot point, other than showing general non-compliance.) So yes, I think the rule changes are a reason to disqualify either votes or an entire election. >It's naked anti-democratic BS, attempting to masquerade as a valid concern. That's a political opinion, not a legal one. Which makes it the legislators decision, not the state court's.

arolihas 6y ago

Yes. Innocent until proven guilty. If you are claiming an election was conducted illegitimately then you are accusing multiple election officials of fraud. This requires evidence, something the Trump legal team didn’t have.

beerandt 6y ago
Elections are not criminal proceedings. Even civil suits only require a "preponderance of evidence." But elections are not court actions. The results (not the overturning) of elections must be believed to be fair with almost certainly, especially by the losing side.
- arolihas 6y ago
  I know elections aren’t court proceedings. But if you believe the results are unfair, then you’re implying some crime took place, namely fraud. You can prove that in court with a preponderance of evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt, but Lin Wood and Rudy Giuliani haven’t managed to do either. > The results (not the overturning) of elections must be believed to be fair with almost certainly, especially by the losing side. According to whom? What will make you think this is fair? To me it seems like the only way Trump supporters and Trump will be convinced of the results is if they say he won.
  - beerandt 6y ago
    That a crime occured does not require you to first convict a criminal. And an election that was not properly conducted does not require that a crime be committed.
    - arolihas 6y ago
      Alright, what do you want? Specifically, what will it take for you to believe the results of the presidential, senate, house, and local elections are legitimate?
      - beerandt 6y ago
        The rules were there for a good reason. If you follow them, and don't unilaterally change them, this whole mess is avoided. Same goes for everyone refusing audits and 1:1 observers for counting. If you can't agree (legislatively) to rule changes (even in a pandemic) you don't change the rules.

pfdietz 6y ago

So, you're asking your opponents to prove a negative. That's not how election law (or common sense) works. You want to contest the result, it's up to you to provide the evidence strong enough to uphold your objections.

arolihas 6y ago
It’s not even how any knowledge in the real world works! These people frustrate me to no end.
beerandt 6y ago
No, holding a proper/legal election that is fully transparent and fully observed, without changing rules, disregarding the legislature, etc... precludes the need for any "proof" whatsoever. However, lacking that, yes, the election officials should be made to prove that the procedures that were actually used were fair. It's a retroactive proving of the process. A security audit in light of a system change. If that can be done, there's no need to prove a negative.
- pfdietz 6y ago
  The rule changes weren't reason to toss out votes. That quibbling that was shot down by judges. In particular, the rule changes were neutral with respect to any candidate. Your objection about the rule changes is, of course, that it allowed more of the wrong kind of people to vote legally. It's naked anti-democratic BS, attempting to masquerade as a valid concern.
  - arolihas 6y ago
    I think these guys are genuinely concerned, which is sad because this means they are completely off their rocker. Check out this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25695661 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25695661 Complete nonsense that somehow manages to stay somewhat intelligible.
  - beerandt 6y ago
    The constitution clearly says the election shall be held via methods as prescribed by the state legislators. Disagreements between branches of state government should have defaulted to the legislature, but didn't in most of the states in question. Especially true in PA, where the legislature specifically voted against implementing the same rules that the court then imposed anyway. Even worse, they ignored Alito's court order to segregate ballots. (Which admittedly ended up being a moot point, other than showing general non-compliance.) So yes, I think the rule changes are a reason to disqualify either votes or an entire election. >It's naked anti-democratic BS, attempting to masquerade as a valid concern. That's a political opinion, not a legal one. Which makes it the legislators decision, not the state court's.