There may not yet be proof of widespread voter fraud, but there are mountains of evidence for it. And that evidence demands an open investigation, not the thoughtless dismissal that the Left and it’s media and Silicon Valley allies would prefer.
From my latest at The Federalist:
If proof is a body of evidence that meets a certain standard, exactly which standard do we apply? This question has different answers in different contexts. In a court of law, the standard for proving a case is “preponderance of evidence” in civil cases and “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal cases. Scientific journals will have another standard while philosophers have still another. But exactly what standard of proof should American voters demand?
The left wants big media and big tech to be our de facto standard of proof. That’s certainly what The New York Times was proclaiming them to be on election day before they deleted their tweet.
The problem is that everyone already knows his own standards of proof operate on a sliding scale. Big media wasn’t terribly particular about their standards on Russian collusion, Brett Kavanaugh’s past, or even smirking teenagers. Neither was big tech very interested in regulating the spread of such dubious narratives.
Even now, the only thing about the election they want to investigate is whether they can blame Qanon for their faulty polls. Their business has become their politics, plain and simple. They’ve been carrying water for the left for far too long for any freethinker to consider them objective, fair, or even professional.
America doesn’t play that game anymore. The Boomers’ world in which nothing was true until you heard it on the six o’clock news is now nostalgia. Today, we get our news from a wide assortment of selected individuals and organizations that we’ve individually come to trust based on our own experience.
But since experience is so subjective, everyone’s selections vary significantly. Accordingly, there’s no real unity to be found there either. As a result, while new media has proven fantastic at accumulating and promulgating evidence, they’re ill-suited to offering broad proof because they do not have any kind of common standard.
The upshot is this: Twitter, CNN, Google, and the like can project and declare whatever winner they want, but they don’t get to choose the president. That’s never going to serve as proof to most Americans today. Big media and bit tech have been too exposed to get away with doing that anymore.
That is why this issue needs to go to the courts to be decided. They are some of the last remaining institutions to which all Americans can—in principle, at least—be held accountable.
Read the whole thing here.
I’ve been following the US election from Australia, and I cannot believe the sort of things which are permitted in America. The sort of election fraud which is alleged in the US would be impossible in the system which operates over here. This is why I immediately wrote the essay https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com/2020/11/america-should-run-elections-like.html
The United States seems to be the only western democracy where these controversies arise at elections, and they arise every time. And I came to the same conclusion as you: the fact that such allegations can be made with any sort of plausibility is itself proof that the system is broken. The matter needs to be fully investigated and corrected, or else serious problems are going to arise.
Thanks for the link, Malcom.
Part of the difference is federalism–that each U.S. state is responsible for it’s own election process to a greater extent than most western democracies. It has certain vulnerabilities. Unfortunately, the other big part is that many of our elites don’t like the electorate here, so they want to replace it. For example, the only reason we don’t have things like reasonable voter ID requirements is that too many of them want non-citizens voting.
That’s horribly corrupt, and rooting it out is the only way of honestly moving forward.
There is a post on a British blog: https://archbishopcranmer.com/concession-transition-fraud-prosecution-alistair-cooke/
However, I draw your attention to a couple of the comments:
“If they have done no wrong then the Democrats have nothing to lose from a full investigation whether the election was conducted fairly. And they have everything to gain. Not least underpinning the legitimacy of the next Presidency. When you know a sure-fire loser is taking you to court on a trumped-up charge (no pun intended) your natural reaction is to say “bring it on!” Strange that we see no such posture from them. It all looks very odd.”
Also:
“Here is a huge story which should be driving journalists everywhere to get off their backsides and go looking for the evidence – one way or the other. You’d expect them to be out there all across their vast nation, fighting to grab the potential scoop of the decade. Yet all they want to do is remain at their keyboards or on their studio sofas and kill the story dead.”