Choices in election beliefs
To the Editor:
We all know that democratically elected officials are those that receive the most eligible votes under conditions that show no significant evidence of voting mis-counts, whether due to counting error or voter fraud. Votes in elections with close margins are recounted to assure that the number of mis-counts is much smaller than the margin held by the winner. And then, through the court system, vote-counting issues can be further examined to determine if negligence, fraud, or some other illegality has occurred.
For our 2020 national election, over 40 court cases were heard by judges appointed by both sides of the aisle, including Trump-appointed judges. None of these cases found significant evidence of foul play. But even when no substantial evidence is presented to the courts, repeated claims that the election was “stolen” are unsettling when they come from people we respect.
This leaves many of us with an awkward choice of selecting who is more believable: over 40 judges from across the political spectrum, or one wing of a party? Should our election beliefs be based on court-accepted evidence, or a hope that our preferred politicians and political pundits are telling the truth? There is a time for faith in politicians, but the consistent court findings on the 2020 election tell us it is now time to recognize the lack of proven evidence for anything but a fair election.