[BrightGlow]

>It's like a blueprint for what to review further.

Why? Something going viral on social media is not proof or evidence that it happened or not. And as you know, without these policies anyone can spread false information about any election for any reason they want.

And the thing is: we know who won those elections. This is not a matter of dispute, it's legal fact. It's great to review things and to theorize about what would have happened if elections were run differently (there was a lot of this around the 2000 US election for example) but just saying something like "the election was fraud, Gore really won" is egregiously false and does nothing besides undermine the democratic process.

[BuyMyBitcoins]

>” we know who won those elections. This is not a matter of dispute, it's legal fact.”

Yes, it is a legal and historical fact these elections had a certified winner.

This misses the point, though. If the integrity of the election is in question, then let people discuss it.

Perhaps, in due time, the consensus will eventually shift and historians will recognize some underhanded things took place. We now know the 1960 Nixon vs. Kennedy election is suspect because of Chicago/Illinois. We know that there were major discrepancies in Lyndon Johnson’s 1948 Texas Senate primary. It’s all pretty well documented at this point. People who “voted” for LBJ signed affidavits that they never voted in the runoff and yet ballots were cast in their name. Sure, it does no good to declare that Nixon really won, or that Coke Stevenson should have been Senator. But it does mean the election process is vulnerable to fraud and needs reform or oversight.

[BrightGlow]

I don't see how I am missing the point. Everything you've said would be mostly within the guidelines. Where you would get into trouble is if you did start saying "Nixon really won" or otherwise trying to say the election was fraudulent, because that would be false. You may want to re-read the guidelines to double check this.

But you may want to be careful with statements like "We now know the 1960 Nixon vs. Kennedy election is suspect". The election is not suspect and the end results (Kennedy won) are not going to change. It was settled decades ago. Specific events like you mention might have been suspect, but the election itself was not, it was settled legally according to the way the system worked at the time.

>the election process is vulnerable to fraud and needs reform or oversight

But that's the thing though, just this saying this on social media in the context of any election is not meaningful and can cause harm, and is causing harm. Every election has statistical oddities, errors, disputes, recounts, and other issues. All of these mentioned election processes already do have oversight and formal reform procedures in place. That's all a normal and expected part of the process. It's a constant ongoing process to improve them. We can never make a perfect system so each election year we just do our best and then resolve the resulting legal disputes in the traditional manner. That's the way the system works.