Firstly, there are many claims that there was some form of voter fraud, whether they be minor or widespread. Some have already been arrested for fraud this election, and at the same time there are both current cases and future cases that will help decide what really happened last year. With so many signed affidavits, it is at least worth questioning the validity of this election. If you look at the recent past, you see Democrats have constantly contested the election every single time their party was not elected President.
Why not look deeply into the election and lay to rest the claims of fraud? Why does media claim Trump "lost" all these court cases, when the truth of the matter is the court cases can neither be considered won or lost?
Layed out partly in here:
https://gbatemp.net/threads/donald-trumps-d-c-speach-01-06-2021.580449/#post-9321894
(We talked about it in the past.
)
So here once more as a rough run down:
More than a third of his accusations (the most 'relevant' ones, from an outsiders (mine
) perspective, and also the ones Trump started his arguments with), are proposed (as in alleged) voter suppression, or reverse voter suppression cases.
So PR, or organisational action thats aimed at getting more (or fewer) people (in certain counties) to the polls.
Same thing that f.e. targeted facebook advertising does before elections (which is problematic btw. - when it concerns negative campaigning)
He then filled those up with anecdotes "as seen on TV" (but didnt point out, how telling those went down in court), and ongoing court cases (but didnt tell that he lost, 90+% of the ones he brought forward).
Then he used that - at the most inopportune time possible (the latest possible moment), to get crowd action going - to, arguably, topple the election, or at least produce a culminating, emotional mass event.
And in the end he produced, hundreds, literally hundreds of reasons, for why the election would be illegitimate - but did in no way differenciate, the likely ones, the at least probable ones, from by then refuted ones, lies, rumors (voting machine malfeasance, ...), ones the courts threw out, ones that didnt scale, ... and so on.
Looking at the reasons he gave that are hardest to completely refute (largely around voter supression, or reverse voter suppression) - on those he only stated the ones that would have benefited him. But there are known ones out there (voter registration incongruencies, gerrymandering) that are known, and in place 'on the other political side' - which he didnt highlight with even a word.
If you break it down - voter suppression is "fair game" - and on the legally actionable ones, he lost his argument in court, but didnt tell anyone. Then there are the ones that are very high emotion - but entirely made up ("Castro pigeons on dominion voting machines!"), which he mixed in, just to make the cocktail more tasty - and if you ignore all of that and look at the "structural fraud" claims (the ones, where access to one action would have altered many votes targetedly) there is nothing.
So in the end 100 different claims of fraud - add up to maybe 100 different claims of fraud, with maybe up to a few hundreds to a few thousand votes affected. And that includes stuff, like 'human error' (f.e. people in voting places not being instructed correctly by their supervisors). But you would have to take his point, to only look at those - and not instances, where that happend 'for' the other party, and only at exactly enough of those, for him to turn the election result in four states at once.
And thats not how this works.
Essentially - 'problematic' stuff happens, as a result of f.e. human error on all elections, statistically it usually doesnt matter. If you can prove - that you have identified an issue - thats 'big' statistically, thats very much an issue, and very much actionable. (Courts are there to intervene and issue repeat elections, or...) If you bring 100 separate cases that might, or might not have influenced small stuff by different means - and want it layed out in a way where it only affected you negatively - because, of something you cant prove... its different.
And on the voter suppression stuff - actions there, although immoral, are largely legal.
So you are welcome to bring that out - but please not on the day the election is ratified. Because that helps no one. And if you've listened closely - since that Trump speech, republicans largely havent helmed those as a huge issue, because there is other stuff (voter registration inconsitencies, gerrymandering), thats widely known, and that might show, that arguably their side is even more into that stuff. (Compared to alleged "everyone registered with a home address was sent a voting ticket, and not just everyone registered in the voting register" stuff.)
Also - overall, losing your case in the courts, and then trying to summon a mob, at the most inopportune time for the political system (the last possible date), is kind of problematic for democracy - because everything the democratic system is structured to do - takes time.
And Trumps case - specifically - was, 'at some point we might be able to send back the voter delegations in the states we want them to' tell people, that it is because of 'incongruencies', and declare, that that the governors of those states, are now able to pick their electoral votes, by party affiliation and not by voting results.
So the aim was not 'to make this process more transparent', but pressure people into ignoring the voting result, as a result of 'there is public unrest' - and we need to get a functioning administration on track, so we fall back on emergency regulation. At a time, where he failed to make the argument, in court, that there was structural voting fraud.
So... yeah. If you do that - even once - you send out the signal, that you cant have democracy anymore, because you cant hold fair elections. Which in a democratic system... kind of is an issue also.
So you look at how pressing the issues layed out are (some made up, some legal, most none structural) - and you compare that to the harm you would do to peoples believe in the democratic system - and you choose not to enact 'emergency laws' in exactly the four states the president wants you to.
That said, peoples believe in the democratic system just tanked (current polls) either way - because, they always saw democratic elections as 'city on a hill' stuff, where birds chirp, and nothing should go wrong, and where their votes were sacrosanct and... most of them where confronted with stuff like 'voter suppression' even existing for the first time.
Which isnt good - because the next time around they demand that they arent influenced by PR, and that there should be no human error at all, and then you'd have to explain to them, that thats impossible.
Its much the same problem as with 'what the News doesnt tell me the truthTM?" that we had in the fake news argument. People falling from the clouds, that certain problems exist - even within the most perfect system imaginable (separation of power, people looking into alleged mishaps), then losing trust, and complaining that they want better. But if you then tell them, that they demand, that supervisors not instructing their vote counting staff correctly in 2 cases out of a 30.000...
This is why the statistically relevant stuff (fraud that scales in the favor of one side only) is most important, and we didnt see that in this election.