If there is a doubt, there is no doubt
If there is a credible doubt whether the elections of 2020 were trustworthy or not, then there is no doubt that they were not. This is how public trust works. We trusted that elections in America were free, fair, and honest, not because we were told there was no evidence that they weren't; we trusted that they were because all doubts that they weren't were — in the eyes of public opinion — obviously incredible or demonstrably false.
Once there is a credible doubt that cannot be dismissed by factual evidence subjected to public scrutiny, the trust begins to fade. And once the trust is gone, it's hard to earn back. For all the things of great importance that we trust must be beyond reproach, or otherwise we risk being duped by those who desire to use our gullibility for their own benefit and our loss.
Yet many elected officials, politicians, judges, and national media commentators are insisting that we must trust the 2020 elections as long as no one can prove that the elections were rigged or a subject of a "wide-spread fraud" that affected their outcomes. According to these individuals, we must trust them that the elections were free, fair, and honest even if there is no verifiable and compelling evidence that they actually were. Although some of them acknowledged that some cases of "minor" or "isolated" and, therefore, "insignificant" fraud did take place in 2020, they failed to notice that a large number of such "minor," "isolated," and otherwise "insignificant" instances of fraud add to a major, widespread, and significant fraud that could easily affect the results of the elections.
Such invalid reversal of the burden of proof from those who administer the election process to those who point out some of its disturbing anomalies and irregularities raises a credible doubt if the elections were nearly as error- and fraud-free as some of them insist. For if the raised concerns either are factually false or pertain to actions and events that are legitimate and valid, then why do the elections' trustworthiness defenders so staunchly refuse to show us the facts we can verify that there was no "widespread fraud" or "systemic error" rather than telling us to just take their word for it instead? And that they try to shift the blame of fading public trust in the election process from visible anomalies and irregularities to those who publicly express their doubts about the elections adds yet another doubt to the existing ones.
There were numerous doubts about the trustworthiness of 2020 elections. They were brought up by some of those who watched the elections. They indicated some statistical improbabilities of sudden changes in real-time distribution of votes between the two presidential contenders, usually taking place in suspect times, often a few hours after midnight, when most of the watchers either were sent home or had gone to sleep. They also indicated unusually high, and therefore statistically unlikely, voter turnout in the most contested precincts, counties, and states. They pointed out several systemic "irregularities" observed at several voting centers, like a lack of proper voters' signature verification, breaks in the chain of custody of the votes cast, a de facto exclusion of election-watchers from the votes counting process, a lack of sufficient transparency of the vote tabulation process or even secrecy of that process, "discoveries" of batches of thousands ballots with virtually all votes for the same candidate, voting totals that exceeded voters, and unsupervised and undocumented movement of boxes into the voting centers, just to name a few.
These doubts were supported by official data and their statistical analyses, by videos taken by the observers, and by sworn affidavits from eyewitnesses. They were as credible as any doubt could be. Yet they were mostly dismissed without meaningful investigations that could produce factual evidence, subjected to public scrutiny, demonstrating that the observable effects on which these doubts were based either did not happen or were results of legitimate actions as opposed to erroneous of fraudulent ones. And those who expressed these doubts were portrayed as unpatriotic villains who attempted to undermine mostly sound (ostensibly), even if not perfect, democratic process.
The more they deny without evidence or proof that the 2020 elections were, in some localities, at least, rigged the more doubtful their denials and the less trustworthy the elections become. If the elections were carried on in a way consistent with all the necessary preconditions for public trust, that — for instance — banks adhere to, then the entire process would have been scrupulously recorded and documented so that any false allegation of fraud, error, or other improprieties could be easily and verifiably demonstrated as false. But such, apparently, is not the case. To make things worse, several eyewitnesses claim that some evidence that could prove errors or wrongdoing has been already destroyed. If those claims turn out true then the "official" position of the elections administrators that "there is no evidence" of any "wrongdoing" becomes disingenuous, if not outright insulting.
But the most outrageous of all is our justice system's (FBI, law enforcement, and the courts) apparent unwillingness to listen to pretty credible testimonies of eyewitnesses and experts who point out to a large amount of facts that strongly suggest that significant election fraud did actually take place in 2020. It reminds me of similar unwillingness of many state and federal law-enforcement agencies to crack down on wide-spread riots, looting, and mob violence that plagued our country earlier this year. I would speculate that the (allegedly) rigged elections are among the root causes of this sad state of the nation as they make it so much more difficult for us, the voters, to replace the governments that seem unwilling to defend us from the raging mob and election fraud, with those who will do a better job in this respect and listen carefully to our grievances.
In one case, a state court dismissed a lawsuit based on alleged election fraud earlier this month. A Wayne County (MI) circuit chief judge denied a request from two voters for an audit independent from the County's Board of Canvassers, in the county that gained some notoriety for violations of election rules, alleged voter and election fraud, and other extensively recorded and documented irregularities.
"It would be an unprecedented exercise of judicial activism for this Court to stop the certification process of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers," the chief judge said. "The Court cannot defy a legislatively crafted process, substitute its judgment for that of the Legislature, and appoint an independent auditor because of an unwieldy process."
So, according to this judge, if the elections are rigged and, therefore, are preventing the voters from electing a state legislature that would institute a truly free, fair, and honest election system then the voters' only recourse is to elect a state legislature that would institute a truly free, fair, and honest elections system. But how can they do that if the elections are rigged, and the courts refuse to step in, ostensibly, in order to avoid "judicial activism" that at so many other occasions they don't mind that much.
The above could have been an isolated incident. But if other courts are similarly inclined to defer the election fraud matter to the discretion of political branches of the government then we may find out that not only the 2020 elections were rigged but that the legal system that is supposed to enforce compliance of the elections with the governing principles, rules, and laws, is unable or unwilling to undo the rigging. Which in itself makes it even more likely that the elections are rigged and will remain so.
Our election system is in need of a serious overhaul, regardless of who is declared the winner at the end of the process. It needs to be at least as trustworthy and transparent as bank accounting routines and policies are. With technology available today, there is no excuse to not collect, record, and document all the evidence that proves on demand that the elections were free, fair, and honest.
Without such measures there is no way of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the governments that have been certified as duly elected are legitimate. Shifting the burden of proof in this respect on governments' legitimacy skeptics only helps to transition America into a banana republic model of "democracy" and, therefore, poses an existential threat to our constitutional republic. Those who advocate such a shift need to be advised that, regardless of their supposedly noble intentions, they facilitate that transition.
Image credit: Pixabay, public domain.