Every election we lose is not because of fraud!

[Chan790]

60. Because there is a presumption of legitimacy of elections...

doubly where there is a procedure (albeit one you don't like as "not transparent enough&quot to effect legitimate election results.

If you want to assert fraud the onus is on you to present proof of that fraud. It's a proof of assertion thing; because it's impossible to prove a negative (in this case the absence of fraud. Even verified paper-record voting is not and cannot be taken as proof of an absence of fraud.) it is upon you to prove your positive assertion of fraud.

To put it another way, assertion of variance from presumption of the continuation of the normative-state requires proof. Without proof, such assertion is baseless speculation. You're the one asserting something is out of sorts, that means you have to prove what you assert.

It's like huge numbers of DUers never read a basic logic and argumentation textbook.