There is a line atheists love to use against Christians: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I agree; however, this line only tells me what to do in the face of an extraordinary claim, not how to identify extraordinary claims.
So when applied to voting fraud and/or irregularities: is it more reasonable to assume no voter fraud/irregularities or the existence of voter fraud/irregularities?
I think the answer is it is more extraordinary to assume no fraud/irregularities. There is a lot of money and power that rides on who wins an election that it is unreasonable to assume people would not cheat in order to win.
TBH, I think this is flipped on its head.
There is a line atheists love to use against Christians: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I agree; however, this line only tells me what to do in the face of an extraordinary claim, not how to identify extraordinary claims.
So when applied to voting fraud and/or irregularities: is it more reasonable to assume no voter fraud/irregularities or the existence of voter fraud/irregularities?
I think the answer is it is more extraordinary to assume no fraud/irregularities. There is a lot of money and power that rides on who wins an election that it is unreasonable to assume people would not cheat in order to win.