This is the winning argument to make from a logical standpoint. There is no acceptable amount of fraud in an election. Any amount of fraud ruins our understanding of the true results. We have such higher standards for food production than we do for voting. Imagine people not caring because only 0.02% of skittles are poisonous.
If we were to accept the results of a fraudulent election, it only makes sense to accept it if someone won despite all proven fraud working against them winning. Even in that case where it's clear who the valid winner is, the whole election is fairly fruitless still. The supreme court should stand by this ruling and actually move the US closer to a system of voting that has a high standard of integrity.
This is the winning argument to make from a logical standpoint. There is no acceptable amount of fraud in an election. Any amount of fraud ruins our understanding of the true results. We have such higher standards for food production than we do for voting. Imagine people not caring because only 0.02% of skittles are poisonous.
If we were to accept the results of a fraudulent election, it only makes sense to accept it if someone won despite all proven fraud working against them winning. Even in that case where it's clear who the valid winner is, the whole election is fairly fruitless still. The supreme court should stand by this ruling and actually move the US closer to a system of voting that has a high standard of integrity.