Originally Posted by
dneal
...But if you're going to assure the American voter that they can trust the election process, you have to do like Arizona and look into claims. Refusal to, and just calling them a bunch of delusional conspiracy theorists comes off as The Great Oz saying "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain". It only reinforces the perceived validity of conspiracy, and makes otherwise rational people more likely to subscribe to conspiracy theories.
This is not true. On more than one level.
First, every state has/had already quality-checked their own elections. This is what happens prior to certification. This is what hired professionals do for each state, at multiple levels. Elections are not, and have never been, quality-checked in the courts. Not even in 2000. If that state feels that sufficient inaccuracies have been found for recounts, then they conduct them. Prior to certification. This is the "assurance" process, and it is already built in. There is no additional quality-check necessary for reasonable and logical "assurance."
When persons or groups of people begin to truck in conspiracy theory beyond this quality check process, there is no obligation--rational, ethical, or legal--to make additional efforts to relieve them of their anxieties and/or delusions. Rational people and rational processes are not responsible for the delusions of others.
Let's put responsibility where it belongs (which is what the courts have done some 56+ times now!): If one is to put forth a challenge to a legal and vetted election result, then the CHALLENGER must supply the persuasive material evidence that pervasive and substantial inaccuracies have resulted. There is no rational or legal responsibility to even entertain the idea of a "person behind a curtain" until one demonstrates that both the curtain and the person are real.
That's the thing about delusional people. They assume from the start that the conspiracy/delusion is likely enough to be real, and then they ask others to take on the responsibility to disprove it.
But that's the argument from delusion.
Bookmarks