QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,349
- Points
- 1,010
There isn't much use clinging to oddball unproven theories about what happened during an election in which novel measures had to be taken to safeguard public health, particularly when most of the underlying evidence has plausible explanations rooted in mundane things like "how advance and mail-in votes are collected", and "these states count early votes last". Some of the jurisdictions did themselves no favours by making their vote-counting processes look opaque, but the bar for fraud has to be a provable claim. If the election comes down to one district in one swing state; sure, anything that doesn't look like customary practice has to be investigated to the roots.
Given the circumstances in entirety there ought to have been, and ought to be now, transparent audits of all vote counting. Saying there is no evidence so we won't look too deeply isn't the bar for election integrity democratic nations should strive for. Government doesn't get the "innocent until proven guilty" right. It must demonstrate its above board at all times and this hasn't been the case in other aspects, why should it be assumed that's the case in election integrity?