[sanswork]

You didn't read the article and you say you haven't looked into it much but twice in this post you've made assertions about legally questionable/illegal actions.

Your posts here are a perfect example of why we need to fight disinfo so strongly because people will parrot random things they hear all over the place and by second level it becomes truth to many.

[pfannkuchen]

I use soft language because this is a sensitive topic that has become hyper politicized and I am not a partisan (both of the current parties are extremely gross).

I said that I haven't read this article. I do assert that a) state electoral process is generally decided by the legislature b) leading up to the 2020 election the mail-in ballot option was greatly expanded in many states c) in at least several states, the ballot option expansion was enacted by the executive branch, not the legislative branch, as part of the emergency response.

Which of the above isn't true?

Getting into details, I am not sure exactly how many states were involved in (c), or whether the (c) possibly could have affected the outcome. Figuring these out would require significant analysis. I would have to go state by state and read the electoral process laws, and then find the state by state records of electoral process change, and then cross reference those, etc.

I haven't seen this analysis done anywhere, but I would be grateful if anyone could link such an analysis since I am still curious. It seems like people generally don't get into the details, they just start yelling.

[sanswork]

You said it would be too much work to go through state by state but you still make strong assertions in you're the three points above. You are speaking from ignorance and declaring things in multiple places and your excuse is that you believe these things and it would be too much work to find the truth. That is the problem.

[pfannkuchen]

You are twisting my words, or you have a serious problem with reading comprehension. Getting morally angry while reading can have that effect, I suppose.

I asserted that a, b and c are true. I am 100% sure about that. I have not asserted anything beyond those in this thread (or elsewhere). If you can rebut a, b, or c I would be very interested, since I prefer to become more right over time.

In order to make a stronger claim than I am making, I would need to do more work. Where that work isn't "looking things up on the internet", it's "performing professional level legal analysis".

[jki275]

You've accurately covered the facts I think.

Beyond that, as you say, would require legal analysis and courts, and there has been a lot of hand wringing and not much legal analysis and the courts have mostly ignored the issue.