[jtxxwl]

If the local election officials wanted to convince me they ran the election fairly, they would have had to have allowed observers to do their job without imposing any restrictions on them that would impair their ability to observe. If that means equipping every worker and observer with personal safety equipment suitable for use in a lab that researches ebola, so be it. Outside observers are absolutely critical.

That is not the only thing, but that is the big one for me.

Of course if Trump had won, I would have trusted that the election was not rigged in his favor by Democrats even given the restrictions on observers, because I don't know of any plausible reason why they might have done so.

[arolihas]

So literally nothing can change your mind at this point unless the results happened to show trump won, got it.

[jtxxwl]

If we agree to flip a coin for $20, and you obstruct my view while you're tossing the coin, you can be sure you're not going to get my $20 no matter what you say afterward, unless you have earned quite a lot of my trust beforehand. Of course if it comes up the right way for me, I will be happy to take your money. Do you think that's unreasonable?

There is far too much opportunity for the election workers to cheat for me to trust them if they aren't closely observed, no matter what they say afterward. That's why observers were put there in the first place.

If the elections workers are not good at cheating, they may leave behind evidence, but a lack of evidence would not be convincing to me, because not all forms of election fraud will necessarily leave behind evidence, and there is too much opportunity for them to get rid of it.