Stogie1020 wrote:A. it doesn't have to be coordinated, just a few counties can determine national elections, and
B. No one is willing to really LOOK for the evidence. They just run around yellling "no proof of widespread fraud" and think that solves everything.
pretty sure in those 61 cases brought to court Rudy and Sydney or whatever her name is brought what they thought would be proof...perhaps the tried and true method of solving crime should still be respected... start with evidence rather than claims?
as a side note, over the years I have looked into actual numbers of election/voting fraud cases with guilty verdicts.
The numbers are very low, but interestingly enough show far more Republicans than Democrats over many years.
Al of that said, I believe the most good to come of this would be to tighten up loose ends, even though there really has been not a shred of proof we shouldn't let it be easy to do. We do owe some thanks for that to the people that obsessively think about manipulating elections...HA!