Today, 03:42 AM
As has been amply demonstrated, the laws were never really meant to be enforced. They are effectively just window dressing - there for show, but not much else. They exist to be pointed at as reassurance (completely empty reassurance, as it turns out) that elections are fair, neutral, and even-handed, If that reassurance wasn't completely empty, then those responsible for all the rules-violating problems and irregularities that have been exposed would be held to account - and that would happen entirely regardless of whether there might be a number of "problematic" votes sufficient to change the outcome of an election.
That those responsible for the violations and irregularities are not being held to account (and are apparently not going to be) is effectively a "green light" signalling that the laws and rules that supposedly govern the conduct of elections don't actually matter, and that they can be violated without consequence (just because the supposed winner would supposedly have won anyway).
Thus, there's not a chance in hell any judge is going to have the balls to actually declare any election to be null and void (certainly not above a certain level of office, anyway) - no matter what shenanigans might be evidenced. Some excuse or other can always be found for ignoring or eliding any "irregularities", the easiest such excuse being "it cannot be said with any certainty that the outcome would have been different". As a practical matter, it is effectively impossible to prove the outcome would in fact have been different, even if it was true - and especially so if any cheating really did occur (the whole point and effect of cheating, after all, is to obfuscate the true results).
Find latest posts
View Articles
View Blog Entries
Originally Posted by TheCount
Connect With Us