[BrightGlow]

I've read about plenty of this, all of that is completely normal. Every election people will try to game the system. It happens. We deal with it on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes we do a better job than other times. It's not fundamentally different from any other social system.

>does not mean the issue has been decisively proven or disproven

Yeah you're technically right but the point is: that doesn't matter to the election. It's of historical interest only, you can't use it to try to prove that an election didn't happen the right way because our system doesn't work like that. Elections aren't decided based on an investigation that happened 60 years in the future, if that was the case then we could never have an election because we'd have to wait 60 years for the results.

[BuyMyBitcoins]

>” Elections aren't decided based on an investigation that happened 60 years in the future, if that was the case then we could never have an election because we'd have to wait 60 years for the results.”

That’s not quite what I’m getting at. The reason why I’m pointing to these 60+ year old elections is because people aren’t as emotionally charged about those elections in particular.

Elections can indeed be decided in the here-and-now, but the integrity questions still remain. That’s the key.

I feel like too many people are declaring the suspicions as moot and settled without actually looking taking the time and effort to investigate fully and properly. Emphasis on the fully and properly, because in the historical examples as well as the more recent examples, I see investigations being dismissed along partisan lines or because the courts did not want to get roiled in a constitutional crisis or a political revolt.

[BrightGlow]

>but the integrity questions still remain.

For those previous elections? No, they don't. The elections themselves are settled. You are asking questions about something different which is future elections, that's an entirely different question and it's a mistake to conflate them entirely with past elections.

>I feel like too many people are declaring the suspicions as moot and settled without actually looking taking the time and effort to investigate fully and properly

I really wish you would stop coming at it from this angle, it's not a productive way to look at things. The suspicions are moot and are settled by the courts. That is a fact. The elections are over. No amount of investigation is going to change the results of those past elections. No matter how many more people you get to investigate this, it isn't going to change it. An investigation could change future elections, but we would only know about that if an investigation was conducted during the period of time when it's legally allowed to happen.

And just to make it clear, there is nothing wrong with having suspicions about holes in an electoral process and discussing what we can do about it. Where you going into bad territory is when you slip in things like "there are open integrity questions" and "the election needs more investigation and isn't settled" and other things that are sowing doubt about the validity of the whole process. In the best case, those statements are misleading, and in the worst case, they're completely false. We may not like that some concerns are dismissed for partisan reasons but you're leaving out how in a lot of cases, that is completely legal and is the system working as intended. I'd love to fix this too but engaging in this type of rhetoric on social media is not going to help there.