Why proof of fraud should not be the test on January 6

[davidgmills]

Fraud is trying to get away with something that you shouldn't get away with. If the fraudster is successful, no one ever knows, or at least, no one ever knows for sure. Some things, however, just look suspiciously like fraud, even when they can't be proven with certainty.

There were many things suspicious about this election, the most notable of which, on a grand scale, is the significant difference between exit polls and actual tabulations. That raises a red flag. The one other obvious thing that raises a red flag on a large scale is the computerized tabulation of 80% of the vote by private partisan corporations.

The suppression Conyers describes and has documented is also a red flag, but more on a local scale; it just happens to be local in one of the key states.

Our election this time was not transparent, and the tabulation of the votes was highly secretive. On its face, these red flags seem to suggest fraud. How can you prove it? Answer: you probably can't. But that should not end the matter.

The whole idea of Congress voting to accept electors is to act as a security check on the voting process. The legislators who enacted this process, back in the 1880's, according to Justice Bryer, did so because they knew that judicial remedies and investigatory tools were not satisfactory in uncovering suspected electoral fraud. If for no other reason, there simply is not enough time to uncover something which is intentionaly hidden. Bryer is right, the courts are just not set up to act as a significant check on presidential electoral fraud.

If you don't believe there is enough evidence of election fraud, please take Breyer's word that the courts are almost helpless as fraud detectors when it comes to the election of the president. If that is the case, (and this is the opinion of a distinguished member of the US Supreme Court), how would you expect for there to be adequate evidence?

Moreover, the executive branch surely is not a check on the system either, because it involves an election of the executive himself.

That leaves Congress as the only real check on the system of national election fraud. And under this process, each Congressman gets to look to his own conscience to determine whether the election on its face appeared to be valid enough to accept the electors from each state. He can do his own investigation into the matter, rely on others to do it for him, or do none at all. It is his perogative. Voting for electors is a matter of individual conscience and judgment for each member of Congress.

Please view January 6 as a matter of conscience and judgment not as a matter of legal proof. It should be viewed as one of the checks of one branch of government on another when the third branch is unable to do so.

[k8conant]

1. You're absolutely right...

anyone contesting in Congress only has to believe the election wasn't fair...not have proof of fraud.

[madbelgiancow]

2. I argued the same thing less eloquently

and with some opposition over here :
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=228687&mesg_id=230340

Well put. And what you state is an important theme for the days ahead : contesting does NOT require conclusive evidence UP FRONT.

It requires a serious doubt about the validity of the process.

[davidgmills]

3. I was trying to frame the debate from the point of view

Of separation of powers and the fact that in some situations only one branch of government has the means or ability to check another.

In the case of a presidential election, the judicial check on the executive is quite limited, primarily because of time.

Bush v. Gore is a good example. While the courts were trying to resolve the legal issues, the clock ran out. The Supreme Court's decison did not really end the litigation. It sent the case back to the Florida Supreme Court for more work. But by then it was time for Congress to vote to accept electors.

[madbelgiancow]

4. " a matter of conscience and judgment and not of legal proof"

is what I was referring to.

But your point about separation of powers is valid.

By the way, I find it pretty ridiculous that in case of serious contest, the clock can be run out.

You should be able to have some form of interim government if need be.

Overe here for example, we can have multi-party coalition formation debates after an election that last a couple of months. Doesn't keep the country form being governed.

[davidgmills]

5. which country are you from?

[femme.democratique]

6. given the user id, methinks belgium :-) eom

[davidgmills]

7. Duh

I guess I should look for clues before I ask a question like that.

[femme.democratique]

8. hey man, I could be wrong :-) eom