Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CltAltAcctDel t1_iyctlaj wrote

The guy that abstained from the first vote will vote to certify the election so this lawsuit will be moot. The whole voter fraud charade is really stupid.

Different point:

> boards must certify the result of election returns regardless of any error or fraud that is discovered during the count or certification process

This seems wrong. There was no widespread in this election so this is a hypothetical point. Let’s say there was solid evidence of widespread fraud. What’s the remedy? How do you certify an election you know to be fraudulent?

1

IamSauerKraut t1_iycvssk wrote

Depends on your definition of "know." MAGAt nation has redefined the word.

11

Excelius t1_iydvb7b wrote

Seems the answer was in the rest of the sentence?

> “Indeed, boards must certify the result of election returns regardless of any error or fraud that is discovered during the count or certification process,” the suit states, noting a Pennsylvania statute that instructs boards to instead file reports about fraudulent or erroneous returns to a district attorney.

5

CltAltAcctDel t1_iydzedi wrote

Why should they certify something that they are unsure of? The word certify has meaning and generally means that it has been verified to meet some standard. I would think withholding certification until the DA completes the investigation would be more appropriate

−4

w00dm4n t1_iye9chx wrote

Answer: America!

and they wonder why Trump gains popularity.

it's dumb stuff like this.

−3

OhioUBobcats t1_iyeadlr wrote

Yes it’s these weird idiosyncrasies that made Trump popular and not him being a giant asshole racist piece of shit who made it acceptable for other assholes to openly be asshole racist pieces of shit. You nailed it.

5

reverendsteveii t1_iyefz59 wrote

Downdooted because the answer to your question immediately follows the part of the law you quote and this feels like shit stirring to me.

2

better_med_than_dead t1_iyew3rs wrote

Well who's to decide that any "evidence" is legit? The election workers? FUCK NO. They are not legal experts and have no jurisdiction to do so.

It would go through the court system, and if it was indeed solid evidence, it would be dealt with by people that have the authority to do so.

2