at least the disputes are

Yes it is if it Violates the US Constitution ....

Having latitude to change the election regul ation by some state legislatures to the secretaries of State or election boards.

Seemingly at violates the US Constitution but we're not making that determination.

so take it to the courts and make that determination... this isn't hard. Just let the investigations happen. Why fight it?

@Soburin, you just advanced to level 3!

I'm not saying I know one way or another I'm just looking at the synergy of the entire debacle... At this point it doesn't look like it's moving in a path that's going to yield a positive Trump.

I suppose anything is possible.

And I'm not really the one to be debating as I am not following it closely.

I did some analysis on the process side.

A very very miniscule amount of analysis.

And it seems hard to scale voter fraud election fraud to the discrepancy required to flip the election unless you're a state actor or a state sponsored actor in which case in my opinion you would have had to catch them the action and perhaps the intelligent services have, but we have no concrete evidence to suggest that this is the case.

.,

Both sides are trying to convince themselves that their side is correct.

Also so much doubt can be introduced into the system and a contingent election can be called.

I think you're looking at it from a perspective regarding the legal framework which I understand. But there is a political perspective that you seem to be missing. There were ~74 million Trump voters using the numbers given. A poll was done recently that stated over 50% believed that the election was stolen. That is approaching 40 million people that do not accept that Biden won the election. This issue needs to be resolved or you are seriously risking a civil war.

If it were to go in Trump's favor that would likely deepen The divide and perhaps start a civil war, which is not totally impossible, extremely unlikely but not impossible.

And I elucidated a path of contingent election

It's going to be hard times either way. But everyone deserves due process, even the President of the United States. This needs to be heard in the courts for the good of the nation. If we can't trust our election results the United States is over.

But there's always a side that will not accept the results.. that argument cuts both ways philosophically

Fraud and an Election Challenge are two different thinks. One is Criminal the other is Process. Both can be violations of Law. The Scope and Remedy are a matter for the Finder of Fact.

*things

We dont need everyone with an inane comment to weigh in to give Trump due process. Biased affidavits not alleging fraud does not a case make for widespread fruad

I can't find any facts perhaps somebody has but I don't think this is a fact-based game I think it's up... S show

This is highly theoretical based off of some unseen yet to be discovered evidence.

I'm not trying to be a smarty pants but I ain't seen it.

We are what several dozens of hours of testimony in and still arent getting to a concrete case

Only the opposite.

Opposite meaning total nothing Burger.

I'm not sure where you're not getting your news but there is plenty of evidence that has the potential to turn over the election and that needs to be thoroughly investigated in order to determine it's validity.

That is what Evidentiary Hearings and Trials are for.

One part of the problem is we don't have any defined metrics.

What is your definition of evidence?

@busillis, you just advanced to level 28!

What is your definition of widespread voter fraud? Any fraud is too much and voter is disenfranchised the whole election is in question? Or hundreds of thousands of votes?

The definition is established by the Code of Procedures.

That's a weasel word answer.

When you build a system or create a system you create metrics to measure the systems performance.

The hearings in front of the legislatures this week offered all kinds of evidence. The accusations made by the affiants are evidence because they submitted the affidavits which puts them under penalty of perjury. There is video in Georgia. There are statistical improbabilities that are so egregious to the point of being impossible. There is much evidence and it needs to be heard in court.

Don't kill the messenger. I didn't make the Rules.

No system is completely foolproof but there's acceptable levels of deviation from the metric.