What should be the quantum of proof needed to prove an election claim, and what should be the consequence if you are wrong

[lawgator1]

So we know that Trump and his attorneys promoted claims of election fraud often with either no proof or with proof already deemed insufficient (or worse, fabricated) to support the claims. Lawyers are being held to account for those falsehoods. Trump probably never will be.

But now there is a pattern of these sorts of claims made by losing GOPers. Kari Lake in Arizona is a prominent example. There are others, some of them quite extreme:
Failed GOP candidate arrested on suspicion of orchestrating shootings at homes of Democrats in New Mexico, police say | CNN


So it seems to me we have come to a point where a losing candidate who wants to promote a claim that the election result was wrong, or obtained through fraud, ought to have to meet a minimum threshold to do so. I personally think that if the claim is miscounting they should have to have a minimum of two affidavits from election officials explaining how the tabulation occurred. If it is a claim of fraud, I think they should have to have admissible evidence that at least 25 % of the vote differential was fraudulent. This does not mean someone speculating. This means examples or other extrinsic objective evidence of fraud.

And if a candidate promotes claims of either without meeting that criteria, there should be criminal or even civil penalties. Fines. Possible claims for defamation by the prevailing candidate.

I am open to alternative thresholds but it seems to me that clearly part of the problem here is that a lot of this gets perpetuated by at first a sweeping claim of fraud only to have it in the end be reduced to a small, finite number of examples and usually where the evidence is ambivalent at best.

An election loser has a right to protest it. But we are at a point where there needs to be some formality to that process so that disgruntled losers cannot withour cause or consequence undermine the very office they sought to hold.

 

[LouderVol]

So we know that Trump and his attorneys promoted claims of election fraud often with either no proof or with proof already deemed insufficient (or worse, fabricated) to support the claims. Lawyers are being held to account for those falsehoods. Trump probably never will be.

But now there is a pattern of these sorts of claims made by losing GOPers. Kari Lake in Arizona is a prominent example. There are others, some of them quite extreme:
Failed GOP candidate arrested on suspicion of orchestrating shootings at homes of Democrats in New Mexico, police say | CNN


So it seems to me we have come to a point where a losing candidate who wants to promote a claim that the election result was wrong, or obtained through fraud, ought to have to meet a minimum threshold to do so. I personally think that if the claim is miscounting they should have to have a minimum of two affidavits from election officials explaining how the tabulation occurred. If it is a claim of fraud, I think they should have to have admissible evidence that at least 25 % of the vote differential was fraudulent. This does not mean someone speculating. This means examples or other extrinsic objective evidence of fraud.

And if a candidate promotes claims of either without meeting that criteria, there should be criminal or even civil penalties. Fines. Possible claims for defamation by the prevailing candidate.

I am open to alternative thresholds but it seems to me that clearly part of the problem here is that a lot of this gets perpetuated by at first a sweeping claim of fraud only to have it in the end be reduced to a small, finite number of examples and usually where the evidence is ambivalent at best.

An election loser has a right to protest it. But we are at a point where there needs to be some formality to that process so that disgruntled losers cannot undermine the very office they sought to hold.

Hilary paid a British Spy to buy Russian lies to push Trump stealing the election. Also had all those Facebook lies changing votes.

I dont ever see this happening. It's too useful of a tool to push politics while never actually making a real change, see guns, healthcare, the border,etc. And both sides will tit for tat us without a care about what is right or wrong.

And really you could do this for just about any government agency. The justice system getting punished for arresting the wrong person, the IRS attacking political rivals or messing up an audit, the EPA pushing through measures that dont help the environment, the FDA pushing unproven drugs. Or what about Congress pushing whatever fear story they have to push politics knowing it's a lie.

If you are going to hold a reckoning, let's hold a reckoning.

 

[LouderVol]

But to answer your question the metric would have to be enough tampered/bad/wrong votes to change the election.

If its 25% or anywhere close we need to completely redo our voting system.

 

[lawgator1]

But to answer your question the metric would have to be enough tampered/bad/wrong votes to change the election.

If its 25% or anywhere close we need to completely redo our voting system.

No, no, I said 25 % of the differential. If you can show that 25% (or more) of the differential was fraudulent I am suggesting that makes out a colorable claim that the result needs to be reexamined.

 

[whodeycin85]

No, no, I said 25 % of the differential. If you can show that 25% (or more) of the differential was fraudulent I am suggesting that makes out a colorable claim that the result needs to be reexamined.

I think a judge has to be willing to listen to the claims...until we actually have a partisan judicial system. It'll never happen

 

[Orangeburst]

Ditch this electronic proprietary software voting system and I will have more faith.
It shouldn't be this difficult to count integers.
Seeing what we have seen for the past many years..proves to me that any one's vote is not necessarily counted accurately. Who knows the accuracy rate.
Ballot harvesting is real.
Destroying election records is real.

No way the nation is as evenly divided as exhibited by election or district. Defies probabilities. Counting chads led to this.

And no way Biden got anti Trump 81M when the man had NO enthusiasm.

Look at polls of "US Right Track"

https://morningconsult.com/right-direction-wrong-track/

 

[OrangeTsar]

Don’t we already have a working judicial system that specifies standards of proof as well as consequences for frivolous suits? You would think an attorney would know these things

 

[lawgator1]

Don’t we already have a working judicial system that specifies standards of proof as well as consequences for frivolous suits? You would think an attorney would know these things

I am being specific to the issue of denying that a result is authentic. Less a burden of proof specifically in court, more one so as to prevent people without consequence perpetuating the false claim

 

[OrangeTsar]

I am being specific to the issue of denying that a result is authentic. Less a burden of proof specifically in court, more one so as to prevent people without consequence perpetuating the false claim

So even worse, the pursuit of legal consequences for constitutionally protected speech? Or do you hold that a belief that an election was fraudulent is not legitimate free speech protected by the first Amendment?

 

[Grand Vol]

I'm wondering if LG is going to acknowledge the Democrats that have claims of fraud...

Or the ones that challenge the results...

 

[utvolpj]

I am being specific to the issue of denying that a result is authentic. Less a burden of proof specifically in court, more one so as to prevent people without consequence perpetuating the false claim

So we should limit their ability to speak on the subject? That has to break a rule or 2

 

[McDad]

Zero proof. People have the freedom to believe in fairytales and tell lies. Therefore, no consequence for lies.

...although the irony of an attorney offering this for discussion is hysterical.

 

[AirVol]

Zero proof. People have the freedom to believe in fairytales and tell lies. Therefore, no consequence for lies.

...although the irony of an attorney offering this for discussion is hysterical.

You can’t make that sh!t up.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

So we know that Trump and his attorneys promoted claims of election fraud often with either no proof or with proof already deemed insufficient (or worse, fabricated) to support the claims. Lawyers are being held to account for those falsehoods. Trump probably never will be.

But now there is a pattern of these sorts of claims made by losing GOPers. Kari Lake in Arizona is a prominent example. There are others, some of them quite extreme:
Failed GOP candidate arrested on suspicion of orchestrating shootings at homes of Democrats in New Mexico, police say | CNN


So it seems to me we have come to a point where a losing candidate who wants to promote a claim that the election result was wrong, or obtained through fraud, ought to have to meet a minimum threshold to do so. I personally think that if the claim is miscounting they should have to have a minimum of two affidavits from election officials explaining how the tabulation occurred. If it is a claim of fraud, I think they should have to have admissible evidence that at least 25 % of the vote differential was fraudulent. This does not mean someone speculating. This means examples or other extrinsic objective evidence of fraud.

And if a candidate promotes claims of either without meeting that criteria, there should be criminal or even civil penalties. Fines. Possible claims for defamation by the prevailing candidate.

I am open to alternative thresholds but it seems to me that clearly part of the problem here is that a lot of this gets perpetuated by at first a sweeping claim of fraud only to have it in the end be reduced to a small, finite number of examples and usually where the evidence is ambivalent at best.

An election loser has a right to protest it. But we are at a point where there needs to be some formality to that process so that disgruntled losers cannot withour cause or consequence undermine the very office they sought to hold.

Again... yet another Trump mention in the first post of a thread you start.

Rent free

 

[rekinhavoc]

I'm wondering if LG is going to acknowledge the Democrats that have claims of fraud...

Or the ones that challenge the results...

Democrats: Proud Election Deniers since 1977 ⋆ Politicrossing

Here is a nice comprehensive list.

 

[KB5252]

I don't think it unreasonable to distrust government. I don't think it unreasonable to distrust big tech/social media.

I think it completely unreasonable to trust big government and big tech/suicidal media when they collude to the same end.

I don't trust Trump.

With all that said I have next to zero faith in our government. They have proven to us time and again they don't deserve our trust. I don't know what the answer is but I think we are at a major pivot point in the American experiment, we are on the precipice of throwing the liberties that set is assist because people feel they entitled to the right to not be offended..

 

[clarksvol00]

I think a judge has to be willing to listen to the claims...until we actually have a partisan judicial system. It'll never happen

Are you saying you want judges who are not impartial, but aligned with a party?

Edit: by the way, do you know how many judges who were appointed by Trump threw out 2020 election challenges? I don't know, but I've sure there were some.

 

[zeppelin128]

So we know that Trump and his attorneys promoted claims of election fraud often with either no proof or with proof already deemed insufficient (or worse, fabricated) to support the claims. Lawyers are being held to account for those falsehoods. Trump probably never will be.

But now there is a pattern of these sorts of claims made by losing GOPers. Kari Lake in Arizona is a prominent example. There are others, some of them quite extreme:
Failed GOP candidate arrested on suspicion of orchestrating shootings at homes of Democrats in New Mexico, police say | CNN


So it seems to me we have come to a point where a losing candidate who wants to promote a claim that the election result was wrong, or obtained through fraud, ought to have to meet a minimum threshold to do so. I personally think that if the claim is miscounting they should have to have a minimum of two affidavits from election officials explaining how the tabulation occurred. If it is a claim of fraud, I think they should have to have admissible evidence that at least 25 % of the vote differential was fraudulent. This does not mean someone speculating. This means examples or other extrinsic objective evidence of fraud.

And if a candidate promotes claims of either without meeting that criteria, there should be criminal or even civil penalties. Fines. Possible claims for defamation by the prevailing candidate.

I am open to alternative thresholds but it seems to me that clearly part of the problem here is that a lot of this gets perpetuated by at first a sweeping claim of fraud only to have it in the end be reduced to a small, finite number of examples and usually where the evidence is ambivalent at best.

An election loser has a right to protest it. But we are at a point where there needs to be some formality to that process so that disgruntled losers cannot withour cause or consequence undermine the very office they sought to hold.

Not sure how any of this would honestly work. It would be restricting speech. I don't think anyone should be in the business of saying "you can't bring a grievance up until x is reached".
Like if somebody wanted to argue Jewish space lasers changed votes, let them have their day in court. Hopefully publicly, so we can laugh at them with the judge.

Loons like that idiot in Florida that is still protesting the GOP primary results, Kari Lake, and Trump went through the channels. They took their grievances to court, and lost. Repeatedly. The system worked.

Same in January 2017 when several Democrats refused to certify the election results, and VN favorite Joe Biden said "nah, we are certifying the results of the election". The system worked.

Let them scream in to the void all they want. I don't think we should be creating barriers for them to do so.

 

[volfanhill]

Not sure how any of this would honestly work. It would be restricting speech. I don't think anyone should be in the business of saying "you can't bring a grievance up until x is reached".
Like if somebody wanted to argue Jewish space lasers changed votes, let them have their day in court. Hopefully publicly, so we can laugh at them with the judge.

Loons like that idiot in Florida that is still protesting the GOP primary results, Kari Lake, and Trump went through the channels. They took their grievances to court, and lost. Repeatedly. The system worked.

Same in January 2017 when several Democrats refused to certify the election results, and VN favorite Joe Biden said "nah, we are certifying the results of the election". The system worked.

Let them scream in to the void all they want. I don't think we should be creating barriers for them to do so.

It's @lawgator1 solution to most things. Restricting freedom and violating the constitution is his go to move. Typical Tuesday for him.

 

[zeppelin128]

It's @lawgator1 solution to most things. Restricting freedom and violating the constitution is his go to move. Typical Tuesday for him.

Well that's the default position of most poster's arguments on here honestly.

 

[kiddiedoc]

Seek help.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Enough with trying inhibit free speech.

Loss of credibility is the penalty. The pendulum will swing the other way before long. We are a country of over corrections

 

[whodeycin85]

Are you saying you want judges who are not impartial, but aligned with a party?

Edit: by the way, do you know how many judges who were appointed by Trump threw out 2020 election challenges? I don't know, but I've sure there were some.

I meant non partisan....no idea how many....but political party shouldn't have a place in a court room

 

[C-south]

So we know that Trump and his attorneys promoted claims of election fraud often with either no proof or with proof already deemed insufficient (or worse, fabricated) to support the claims. Lawyers are being held to account for those falsehoods. Trump probably never will be.

But now there is a pattern of these sorts of claims made by losing GOPers. Kari Lake in Arizona is a prominent example. There are others, some of them quite extreme:
Failed GOP candidate arrested on suspicion of orchestrating shootings at homes of Democrats in New Mexico, police say | CNN


So it seems to me we have come to a point where a losing candidate who wants to promote a claim that the election result was wrong, or obtained through fraud, ought to have to meet a minimum threshold to do so. I personally think that if the claim is miscounting they should have to have a minimum of two affidavits from election officials explaining how the tabulation occurred. If it is a claim of fraud, I think they should have to have admissible evidence that at least 25 % of the vote differential was fraudulent. This does not mean someone speculating. This means examples or other extrinsic objective evidence of fraud.

And if a candidate promotes claims of either without meeting that criteria, there should be criminal or even civil penalties. Fines. Possible claims for defamation by the prevailing candidate.

I am open to alternative thresholds but it seems to me that clearly part of the problem here is that a lot of this gets perpetuated by at first a sweeping claim of fraud only to have it in the end be reduced to a small, finite number of examples and usually where the evidence is ambivalent at best.

An election loser has a right to protest it. But we are at a point where there needs to be some formality to that process so that disgruntled losers cannot withour cause or consequence undermine the very office they sought to hold.

Lol my god. This from someone that supports a group of morons who oppose voter ID, ballot harvest, prefer mail in voting instead of in person, etc.

 

[LouderVol]

No, no, I said 25 % of the differential. If you can show that 25% (or more) of the differential was fraudulent I am suggesting that makes out a colorable claim that the result needs to be reexamined.

Ah. I misunderstood. Not exactly sure what you mean by colorable but I think I get the implication.

Does it have to hit 25% before the accuser ISNT held accountable for making the claim? That seems a pretty steep requirement.

Does 25% trigger a recount/audit?
Does it trigger a revote?
What happens to the candidate? It's obvious they should be thrown out if they had a hand in it. But what if it was the party, some PAC, or unrelated wacko?

I would think any proof and punishment that can hit the candidate has to be able to hit any involved party. Something with teeth.