3 ms·

No, holding a proper/legal election that is fully transparent and fully observed, without changing rules, disregarding the legislature, etc... precludes the ne

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.
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    That's nice. It doesn't mean the results were fraudulent. And it doesn't mean tossing out the results was legally justified. The judges properly disagreed with your absurd conclusion that it was "a reason to disqualify either votes or an entire election." That was far too large an ask.
    - beerandt 6y ago
      It potentially means a changed outcome, regardless of your definition of fraudulent. >was legally justified. Yes it does. That's what everyone is saying. Don't follow the rules, it doesn't count. If Pence opened envelopes from the Trump electors on Wed, I'd bet you'd think the rules for which votes to reject were important again. >The judges properly disagreed No. They punted, based on discretional original jurisdiction and/or standing, depending on the case. (Both based on bad caselaw, themselves.) Which is ashame, because had they heard the case, it could have prevented all of this.
      - pfdietz 6y ago
        The question was adjudicated to a conclusion. That you do not accept the conclusion reached doesn't mean a conclusion was not reached. Your acceptance isn't necessary for the result to be the truth.

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.
- pfdietz 6y ago
  That's nice. It doesn't mean the results were fraudulent. And it doesn't mean tossing out the results was legally justified. The judges properly disagreed with your absurd conclusion that it was "a reason to disqualify either votes or an entire election." That was far too large an ask.
  - beerandt 6y ago
    It potentially means a changed outcome, regardless of your definition of fraudulent. >was legally justified. Yes it does. That's what everyone is saying. Don't follow the rules, it doesn't count. If Pence opened envelopes from the Trump electors on Wed, I'd bet you'd think the rules for which votes to reject were important again. >The judges properly disagreed No. They punted, based on discretional original jurisdiction and/or standing, depending on the case. (Both based on bad caselaw, themselves.) Which is ashame, because had they heard the case, it could have prevented all of this.
    - pfdietz 6y ago
      The question was adjudicated to a conclusion. That you do not accept the conclusion reached doesn't mean a conclusion was not reached. Your acceptance isn't necessary for the result to be the truth.