Let's circle back around here.
The point I was originally making is that "there is no fraud" is the default assumption, which I expanded to default legal assumption. You said that, no, the default legal assumption is nothing. Fair. You also assert that technically, every single US election is in this "nothing can be concluded zone."
Functionally, what happens when you can't substantiate "there was fraud" is that, by common consensus, "there is no fraud" is assumed to be true. And every single US election has, by common consensus, come to be seen as not having fraud when none was proven to be there. So for all intents and purposes, the assumption -is- by common consensus that there was no fraud.
I call it semantic because in a legal sense, sure, it's all, like, nothing. In practical life and use, it may as well be that "there is no fraud" is the default assumption.
There is a problem.
the way I see, the Elections have no presumption of innocence for a simple reason, it's not supposed be ran on blind trust but they are rather supposed to run on full transparency.
the voters have every single right to full disclosure of laws, chain of custody documents, coherent counts, ever present observers and audits, the elections don't belong to an governor or to an AG, they belong to the people, and they are not given a single reason to believe they are run in a fair way if transparency is being denied at every step.
I don't trust elections are run in a fair way, I demand that I have full access to my representatives, I demand that data is made public, I demand that documents are shown and kept, I demand that counts are balanced before certification, I demand laws were followed and I demand an audit if none of that is true, its a right, not a courtesy, officials the executive branch and the state judiciary did everything they coud to deny that transparency to their voters, and they deserve to be punished by law for that.
by the moment my observers are denied observation, the election is not transparent, the moment counting stops and there are no documents of the custody of the late arriving ballots, the election is not transparent, the moment audits are denied and certification rushed the elections are not transparent.
The Government has the burden of proving that the process can be trusted, and because there has been no transparency, there was no observation, no chain of custody, no audits, all the actions taken so far more than show they cannot guarantee the integrity of these results, if they don't trust it, then why should us?
So no, you don't have to prove an election run like that is fraudulent, they are the ones that have to prove that despites the mountains of irregularities and broken laws, despites the illegal manuevers in legislation, despites the wrongful management of observers, despites the mathematically miraculous results and poll books that don't close, they have to prove the elections were not fraudulent.
"Dude Trust me lmao" is not how you have any kind of election. no transparency means no legitimacy for at least half the country, andI tell you they are doing a hell of an effort be the least transparent as possible, there are laws agaisnt what happened and the time to enforce them has come fast enough, so there might be precedent to prevent that from happening ever again.
The momment you deny transparency is when you delegitimate the process.
" To them, the ends justify the means.
