The Trump Administration, and to an extent the GOP more generally, argue that there has been fraud committed in the 2020 election for the US presidency. I have heard/read it argued that since there appears to be an insufficiency of fraud to alter the projected outcome the media has announced, we shouldn't make any effort to discover the extent of the fraud or punish the perpetrators.
The question seems to be that there hasn't been enough cheating to merit any corrective action being taken. Let me offer this analogy; the Democratic party seems to be arguing that the amount of rape that occurred in Nanking isn't enough to justify any effort at punishing the occupying Japanese troops in 1937.
In the several states in which criminal influence on the 2020 election can be proven to ordinary US criminal standards, the ballots that cannot be proven to have been counted honestly must be dis-allowed. The individuals that can be proven to have made that occur should be prosecuted for that crime(s). If that action changes the electoral outcome (one way or another), then that is the result of the 2020 election. The states appoint the electors the legal vote count establishes. The Electoral College informs the Congress, which then certifies the election, just as the Constitution requires.
The amount of criminality prosecuted makes no difference as far as the legitimacy of the election (or the identity of the candidate subsequently sworn into office) is concerned, so long as the Constitutional requirements are satisfied. It should be the minimum standard expected by any citizen that legal, transparently honest elections be the only acceptable mechanism allowed to determine US elections.
Like rape, a little bit of fraud is unacceptable, and anyone arguing otherwise must be considered to be pursuing an equally unacceptable outcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment