Yes.

Innocent until proven guilty. If you are claiming an election was conducted illegitimately then you are accusing multiple election officials of fraud. This requires evidence, something the Trump legal team didn’t have.

Elections are not criminal proceedings.

Even civil suits only require a "preponderance of evidence."

But elections are not court actions.

The results (not the overturning) of elections must be believed to be fair with almost certainly, especially by the losing side.

I know elections aren’t court proceedings. But if you believe the results are unfair, then you’re implying some crime took place, namely fraud. You can prove that in court with a preponderance of evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt, but Lin Wood and Rudy Giuliani haven’t managed to do either.

> The results (not the overturning) of elections must be believed to be fair with almost certainly, especially by the losing side.

According to whom? What will make you think this is fair? To me it seems like the only way Trump supporters and Trump will be convinced of the results is if they say he won.

That a crime occured does not require you to first convict a criminal.

And an election that was not properly conducted does not require that a crime be committed.

Alright, what do you want? Specifically, what will it take for you to believe the results of the presidential, senate, house, and local elections are legitimate?

The rules were there for a good reason. If you follow them, and don't unilaterally change them, this whole mess is avoided.

Same goes for everyone refusing audits and 1:1 observers for counting.

If you can't agree (legislatively) to rule changes (even in a pandemic) you don't change the rules.

So, you're asking your opponents to prove a negative. That's not how election law (or common sense) works. You want to contest the result, it's up to you to provide the evidence strong enough to uphold your objections.

No, holding a proper/legal election that is fully transparent and fully observed, without changing rules, disregarding the legislature, etc...

precludes the need for any "proof" whatsoever.

However, lacking that, yes, the election officials should be made to prove that the procedures that were actually used were fair.

It's a retroactive proving of the process. A security audit in light of a system change. If that can be done, there's no need to prove a negative.

The rule changes weren't reason to toss out votes. That quibbling that was shot down by judges. In particular, the rule changes were neutral with respect to any candidate.

Your objection about the rule changes is, of course, that it allowed more of the wrong kind of people to vote legally. It's naked anti-democratic BS, attempting to masquerade as a valid concern.

The constitution clearly says the election shall be held via methods as prescribed by the state legislators.

Disagreements between branches of state government should have defaulted to the legislature, but didn't in most of the states in question. Especially true in PA, where the legislature specifically voted against implementing the same rules that the court then imposed anyway.

Even worse, they ignored Alito's court order to segregate ballots. (Which admittedly ended up being a moot point, other than showing general non-compliance.)

So yes, I think the rule changes are a reason to disqualify either votes or an entire election.

>It's naked anti-democratic BS, attempting to masquerade as a valid concern.

That's a political opinion, not a legal one. Which makes it the legislators decision, not the state court's.

That's nice. It doesn't mean the results were fraudulent. And it doesn't mean tossing out the results was legally justified.

The judges properly disagreed with your absurd conclusion that it was "a reason to disqualify either votes or an entire election." That was far too large an ask.

It potentially means a changed outcome, regardless of your definition of fraudulent.

>was legally justified.

Yes it does. That's what everyone is saying. Don't follow the rules, it doesn't count.

If Pence opened envelopes from the Trump electors on Wed, I'd bet you'd think the rules for which votes to reject were important again.

>The judges properly disagreed

No. They punted, based on discretional original jurisdiction and/or standing, depending on the case. (Both based on bad caselaw, themselves.)

Which is ashame, because had they heard the case, it could have prevented all of this.

The question was adjudicated to a conclusion. That you do not accept the conclusion reached doesn't mean a conclusion was not reached. Your acceptance isn't necessary for the result to be the truth.

I think these guys are genuinely concerned, which is sad because this means they are completely off their rocker. Check out this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25695661

Complete nonsense that somehow manages to stay somewhat intelligible.