If an election was stolen and there's no evidence of it

[planetc]

37. "If an election was stolen and there's no evidence of it"...

Then we ought to be demanding, and I mean demanding, an election system that is transparent and accurate.

I have no, zero, zip, and zilch confidence in current election technologies in the US. Apparently it is not even difficult for a competent programmer to alter vote counts that are lodged in computers. Until we install a national voting system we can a) understand, and b) trust, I will believe very little that's reported to me about election results by the media.

You also say: "An election where someone wins by a significant margin may be a stolen election, but it's less likely than if it were a close margin." And that is the kind of argument that I read after the general election of 2000. Then, the talking point was that the actual margins of victory were sometimes, or often, not of "statistically significant" size. To both your assertion and the 2000 pundits, I say that the Republicans have grasped one point better that we have. That point is that what does matter is: Who Won The Election, and not the size of the margin of victory. We have just finished observing George W. Bush reign in Washington for 8 years on an initial victory margin of 537. He ruled, of course, as though he had won in a landslide.

And you say that "Evidence of election fraud is a necessity if you're going to make that claim." One of the main weaknesses of the current voting system is that election supervisors and the public *can't* be sure that vote count manipulation *didn't* take place. We appear to have accepted a system where we have to accept the voting machine manufacturers' word for the accuracy of the results.

This sounds to me more like a con game that an election system fit for a democracy.