I don’t get this.

Isn’t it weak, two point out that no one can find evidence after the fact, versus the proper alternative that no one can prove that they’re actually-secure before the fact?

Let’s just say that you were a bad guy and manipulating elections, wouldn’t you be bad at your job if someone could detect it after the fact? How many people would a conspiracy even take to pull of?

I don’t get the US system. The people mad at Trump and 2020 claims brush off all the ways the elections can’t be proven in favor that weeks or years afterwards no one can’t point to hard evidence.

> Isn’t it weak, two point out that no one can find evidence after the fact, versus the proper alternative that no one can prove that they’re actually-secure before the fact?

Isn't it weaker, to claim fraud so vast it changed a presidential election, while presenting no evidence?

Then, to ask for billion-dollar changes to voting, which also suppress voting, and when asked why, to shrug and then repeat the same debunked claims? I mean, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I don't get it: the people mad at voting advocates and 2020 brush off proof that their claims are unfounded, yet they just repeat the same claims. At some point, it's malice, not ignorance.