Highlanders
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2019
- Messages
- 2,574
- Reaction score
- 98
- Location
- Highlands Scotland
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Goodness me, a simple investigation that wasn't a stitch up was all that was required..... and it's now too late, you need third world tactics, tanks and soldiers on the street, while malitias match fully armed, waiting for a spark in the powder keg!They did an investigation. That is the truth that you need to ignore on your quest to get what you want. You are not asking for an investigation, you are asking for an investigation that you like. Every credible accusation of fraud was investigated and a report was issued. If you read the court filings what you find is plenty of tertiary investigations on top of primary and secondary assurance methods.
In reality, vote counting is over-assured.
I suspect this will be controversial to people who don't understand election security and fraud prevention, but it really isn't that controversial. We prevent fraud by increasing the number of people who are required to commit and hide fraud. We have found that multiple people, even if all the required people would commit fraud individually, are very unlikely to collude to commit fraud. Corporations generally consider collusion risk properly controlled when it requires three people to commit and hide fraud. People have access to tens of millions of dollars in cash with three levels of fraud protection. Vote counting protections take that exponentially farther. The collusion ring would have to be large enough that it is well beyond unlikely.
So your solution to protect elections that currently require dozens of people colluding in a coordinated effort in order to defeat is to trust one guy who your propaganda source of choice managed to find. If Democrats were asking for that same thing how would you respond?