|
|
|
|
|
|
by defrost
616 days ago
|
|
|
As I understand it: They asked for transparency, they alleged voter fraud, they were heard, and no evidence of any fraud was found. Is that correct or not? > There is a lot of concern over voter fraud It appeared from outside to be "concern" that only came from poor losers who were unable to provide any evidence for their concern. Was that true or not? Was there any evidence of the fraud claimed by Trump, Giuliani, Sidney Powell that passed muster? Were they engaged in anything more than maliciuous "concern trolling" to cast shade over results? Did they not get their many days in Court? > Verifying election results should be instant and transparent Transparent, yes - instant no; rechecking physical ballots takes time and there's as yet no robust digital voting methods that can trusted. |
|
|
My understanding is that it's more complicated and in a lot of cases the evidence wasn't even allowed to be presented. The cases were thrown out without being heard, and the media called this line of questioning anti-democratic from the start.
> Were they engaged in anything more than maliciuous "concern trolling" to cast shade over results? Did they not get their many days in Court?
I believe this was never taken seriously to begin with, and was also flagged as undemocratic and fascistic to even question the results. That doesn't help instill confidence from the opposition. Regardless, talking about this is extremely complicated with tons of details to go over on why there might or might not have been any kind of fraud. Honestly it's beyond my understanding and time to research, which is part of my point. Elections should have a process that is simple enough to verify with relatively less effort such that it raises the confidence of ALL the voters.