I think there is a legitimate use of reassurances, even when you have a sound process and ethical basis. A response to questioning with a reassuring "let me show you" is different from "trust me, and don't look behind the curtain", and miles from "don't ask any questions you evil election denier" and calling challenging the results treason.
For the record, I am not saying the election were corrupt in all states. I'm sure they were not in many states. Perhaps in all 50. But, I am seeing valid reasons to question, and a dictatorial reaction to the questions. The latter is a red flag. The tricky part is what do we do about it?
If you step back you will realize that the national party (in my mind there is only one) has been trying to centralize control of elections in the federal government for decades. Our constitution distributes this power to the states for good reason. Efforts to characterize the electoral college as "obsolete" for are intellectually dishonest. The purpose is take control away from the states. A single point of corruption is far worse than the many points we have now. Be careful of "solutions" that include federal oversight - that is like reassuring the chickens that the brigade of foxes will keep them safe.
What has been said elsewhere is "if you are ethical, then showing us you are ethical won't cost you anything, in fact, you would be going out of your away to not only show integrity, but to avoid any perception of malfeasance."
So if someone is acting with integrity, the answer should be "let's go look at the video together, I'll also provide documents, and let's work through this."
I think there is a legitimate use of reassurances, even when you have a sound process and ethical basis. A response to questioning with a reassuring "let me show you" is different from "trust me, and don't look behind the curtain", and miles from "don't ask any questions you evil election denier" and calling challenging the results treason.
For the record, I am not saying the election were corrupt in all states. I'm sure they were not in many states. Perhaps in all 50. But, I am seeing valid reasons to question, and a dictatorial reaction to the questions. The latter is a red flag. The tricky part is what do we do about it?
If you step back you will realize that the national party (in my mind there is only one) has been trying to centralize control of elections in the federal government for decades. Our constitution distributes this power to the states for good reason. Efforts to characterize the electoral college as "obsolete" for are intellectually dishonest. The purpose is take control away from the states. A single point of corruption is far worse than the many points we have now. Be careful of "solutions" that include federal oversight - that is like reassuring the chickens that the brigade of foxes will keep them safe.
What has been said elsewhere is "if you are ethical, then showing us you are ethical won't cost you anything, in fact, you would be going out of your away to not only show integrity, but to avoid any perception of malfeasance."
So if someone is acting with integrity, the answer should be "let's go look at the video together, I'll also provide documents, and let's work through this."