The reality is that it always takes time for some states to count all the votes; when these rumors started ramping up, there were over ten million uncounted ballots in California alone. But, many people don’t know that this is how things always work. So, with emotions high in the aftermath of the election, disinformation purveyors are taking advantage of the opportunity to get well-intentioned people to help amplify conspiracy theories.
If you see allegations of “millions of missing votes” or voting machine fraud, please don’t amplify them! Instead:
-
If it’s somebody you know, send them a private message letting them know that they’re unintentionally amplifying a false rumor.
-
If it’s not somebody you know, report it to the moderators as disinformation.
People spent the last 4 years asking for proof in response for allegations of voter fraud and the only way to not normalize the concept of voter fraud is to continue to do just that. The only reasonable thing to do is just that.
Throughout America’s history we’ve gotten through some pretty wild shit with nothing more than the fervent belief that the framework upon which our Republic is built can withstand the test of time so long as we are willing to defend it, and have faith that people like those were counting the votes, because most of them are
Which it clearly can’t. You don’t need to be a genius to figure out that the founding fathers weren’t the demigods they’re usually portrayed as and thus weren’t able to predict 21st century problems in the 1700s.
Especially since their mechanism for changing anything fundamental has been made impossible by polarization.
Like the whole “American Dream” and trickle down economics, you’d have to be asleep to still believe that it’s working.
You are correct in that the Constitution alone can’t stand the test of time. In fact, I implied such.
No matter how willing you are to defend it, the 1700s system you’re still operating on is broken. It was never designed to be static, much less anticipate 21st century conditions.
At this point, defending it rather than fighting for it to be replaced by something better is a big part of the problem.
That’s a different thing entirely. On topic:
Any constitutional oath is a directive that can be superceded by no man. If someone attempts to amend the constitution without ratification, we’re bound by oath to not acknowledge such a change. If we’re given orders that violate the consitution, we’re bound by oath to not acknowledge those orders.
Ideally, nobody who made an oath to uphold the constitution will fuck with a ballot. They won’t sieze land, they won’t use force on or unlawfully detain civilians, none of that, and if push comes to shove that is a hill people will ideally fight and die on. Trump can’t make us do a god damned thing if it means turning our back on the constitution. The buck stops there.
You can soapbox about how we need reform, but that’s a different topic entirely