No. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Sometimes such evidence exists. Much more often it does not.
-
-
-
Nope! That’s a terrible inversion of obligation. Elections are supposed to provide neutral and credible evidence of the result, precisely because partisans are natural to disbelieve a loss.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
That’s where you also need to acknowledge the human factors. There’s some very interesting studies in the UK indicating people feel social pressure and lie to pollsters. Esp. If their pref is conservative.
-
Even exit polls have pretty reliable margins of error and correction factors, and the "unexpectedly" matters. Though a serious problem is that within a few unauditable election cycles there is no longer any neutral credible evidence with which to baseline studies.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'm not for starting coups or tax strikes ... but courts and elections bodies should absolutely not certify outcomes that can't be verified. That's extremely mainstream and has been a successful argument in several jurisdictions.
-
In short, cranks are gonna crank and anything confirmatory to the bias will be adopted (uncertified) and anything against (certified or uncertified for 'my' candidate) discarded.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
In Germany, the use of electronic voting machines is unconstitutional because they cannot guarantee free and auditable elections.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.