YOU'RE FIRED!

[Miles]

.


Joe Biden, now with 279 electoral votes and Trump with only 213 or 214 electoral votes (depends on whom your watching) is the clear President Elect of the U.S.A..

Trump received the news while golfing in Florida. (Where else would he be?)


Upon hearing of Biden's 279 electoral votes. . . .



"Frankly, we did win this election." * "Yup." "You sure did your highness." "yes siree!"

"Shortly before his defeat by Joe Biden was called, and with the nation deeply divided, Donald Trump began his Saturday by tweeting inflammatory and unsubstantiated claims about voter fraud. Then he went to play golf.

The president, the White House pool reporter wrote, appeared for the motorcade to his course in Sterling, Virginia "wearing white Maga cap, windbreaker, dark slacks, non-dress shirt, shoes that look appropriate for golfing".

Trumps dedication to playing golf while in office has been a source of continuing controversy particularly because he memorably and repeatedly lambasted his predecessor, Barack Obama, over how often he played the game."
source

And

"Trump Was Golfing When He Lost the Presidency"
Where were you when you found out the 2020 presidential election was called for Joe Biden? I was at home, blogging. My neighbors appear to have been "at the store, shopping for airhorns." We know where President Trump was: at the golf course. According to the Associated Press, Trump left for his golf course in Virginia earlier this morning and hasnt yet come back.

Thoughts and prayers for his caddie."
source

And Trump's response?

"Donald Trump is refusing to concede the presidential election to Joe Biden even after the Associated Press, and every US television news network, declared him the president-elect, saying the race is "far from over" and promising an intense legal fight.

"The simple fact is this election is far from over. Joe Biden has not been certified as the winner of any states, let alone any of the highly contested states headed for mandatory recounts, or states where our campaign has valid and legitimate legal challenges that could determine the ultimate victor," the president said in a statement, released by his campaign.

"Beginning Monday, our campaign will start prosecuting our case in court to ensure election laws are fully upheld and the rightful winner is seated. The American people are entitled to an honest election: that means counting all legal ballots, and not counting any illegal ballots," he said, continuing to claim there is widespread voter fraud but without evidence."
source

So, kind members, how do you think Trump will be handling his defeat in the coming months. Will he actually go ahead with an "intense legal fight"? Will he welcome the Bidens into the White House in January as is the custom? Will he even attend Biden's inauguration? Some TV pundits are doubtful.

*source


.

[historia]

You unreasonably assumed that Trump would never (at any point in time) turn up any evidence and you did so before the legal deadline for him to produce that evidence. Not having evidence on Nov. 3 (election night), doesn't mean he won't get the evidence by December 8 or 14 (electoral college vote).

On the contrary, at no point have I merely assumed that Trump would never produce enough evidence of fraud to convince courts in at least three states to overturn the election.

Rather, I (and countless others) assessed that the likelihood of Trump producing such evidence was very low, and thus not worth taking seriously. And that became increasingly apparent after Trump's legal challenges were taken over by the likes of Giuliani and Powell.

Since you're fond of sports analogies: This is like having a discussion about the Oakland Raiders winning the Super Bowl this year. Possible, even at this late stage in the season? Sure. Probable enough to take seriously? Of course not. It's not even worth discussing.

We don't need to wait until February 7 to make that determination about the Raiders, just like we don't need to wait until January 6 to make that determination about this election.

[AgnosticBoy]

You unreasonably assumed that Trump would never (at any point in time) turn up any evidence and you did so before the legal deadline for him to produce that evidence. Not having evidence on Nov. 3 (election night), doesn't mean he won't get the evidence by December 8 or 14 (electoral college vote).

On the contrary, at no point have I merely assumed that Trump would never produce enough evidence of fraud to convince courts in at least three states to overturn the election.

Rather, I (and countless others) assessed that the likelihood of Trump producing such evidence was very low, and thus not worth taking seriously. And that became increasingly apparent after Trump's legal challenges were taken over by the likes of Giuliani and Powell.

Instead of not taking Trump, Giuliani, and Powell seriously (i assume you bring them up because you think they aren't credible), you should take my points seriously. I've made my own case, and it is valid even if we take Trump and his team out of the picture. My conclusion or position is that I don't know if American elections are fair which is contrary to your conclusion that the election was fair. My supporting reason is that we lack oversight to catch cheating and errors in some cases.

In fact, I will even say that had Trump took my position and used my supporting point for it (as opposed to claiming that there was cheating), then he and his team would have increased their potential for success with the courts and at finding errors and fraud. The reason I say this is because the one court case that Trump won was in regards to oversight. This was the case about observers in Philadelphia. Also, the one state where he was successful at getting a recount found thousands of uncounted votes. I won't go as far as saying that Trump would've found enough fraud to overturn the election had he been successful with getting both manual recounts with added oversight, but the main point is had there been fraud, then it would've likely been caught under those conditions (recounts w/ added oversight). But as it stands, that wasn't done, and therefore I can't claim that this election had no fraud nor errors, and without knowing that, I can't claim that elections are "fair".

[Purple Knight]

I won't go as far as saying that Trump would've found enough fraud to overturn the election had he been successful with getting both manual recounts with added oversight, but the main point is had there been fraud, then it would've likely been caught under those conditions (recounts w/ added oversight). But as it stands, that wasn't done, and therefore I can't claim that this election had no fraud nor errors, and without knowing that, I can't claim that elections are "fair".

This is a perfect example of why I tend to reject the atheist mantra that negative claims are automatically superior to positive ones.

"The election was fair." Well, that certainly seems like a positive claim, ne?

"There was some sort of fraud or cheating." Oh. Well. This seems like a positive claim, too.

Yet these are logically contradictory premises. One must be true and the other must be false.

Which claim is positive and which claim is negative is often a matter of phraseology and there's not a clear, logical answer.

[historia]

I (and countless others) assessed that the likelihood of Trump producing such evidence was very low, and thus not worth taking seriously. And that became increasingly apparent after Trump's legal challenges were taken over by the likes of Giuliani and Powell.

Instead of not taking Trump, Giuliani, and Powell seriously (i assume you bring them up because you think they aren't credible), you should take my points seriously. I've made my own case, and it is valid even if we take Trump and his team out of the picture. My conclusion or position is that I don't know if American elections are fair which is contrary to your conclusion that the election was fair. My supporting reason is that we lack oversight to catch cheating and errors in some cases.

Okay, so you don't know if the election was "fair." Now what? Why should your uncertainty compel the rest of us to conclude that Biden didn't win the election?

Further, you've defined "fair" to mean "there was no fraud or errors," which is not what most people mean by fair. On that extreme definition, there has likely never been a "fair" election in the entire history of the United States, or possibly anywhere else in the world, since small-scale fraud and mistakes occur in pretty much every election.

Therefore, your argument here amounts to little more than the observation that this election was like other elections. So, again, why should that compel the rest of us to conclude that Biden didn't win?

In fact, I will even say that had Trump took my position and used my supporting point for it (as opposed to claiming that there was cheating), then he and his team would have increased their potential for success with the courts and at finding errors and fraud. The reason I say this is because the one court case that Trump won was in regards to oversight. This was the case about observers in Philadelphia.

As I pointed out back in post #14 over a month ago, this is simply mistaken. Of the 60 lawsuits filed by Team Trump, the only one they won was on shortening the timeframe for curing ballots in Pennsylavania from nine days to six days.

Again, the lawsuit you're thinking of was overturned by the Pennsylavania Supreme Court on appeal. Trump lost every single one of his cases regarding oversight or fraud.

Also, the one state where he was successful at getting a recount found thousands of uncounted votes.

Yeah, mistakes happen, which is precisely why states like Georgia do an automatic recount when the results of an election are close. These almost always reveal processing or tabulation errors that correct the results by a few hundred -- or in rare cases maybe a couple thousand -- votes.

Biden's lead in every swing state far exceeded that number, making the likelihood of a recount changing the result in even just one state (let alone the three Trump needed to overturn the election) extremely low.

I won't go as far as saying that Trump would've found enough fraud to overturn the election

Then the point is moot. You've given us no compelling reason to think Biden didn't win.

[AgnosticBoy]

Instead of not taking Trump, Giuliani, and Powell seriously (i assume you bring them up because you think they aren't credible), you should take my points seriously. I've made my own case, and it is valid even if we take Trump and his team out of the picture. My conclusion or position is that I don't know if American elections are fair which is contrary to your conclusion that the election was fair. My supporting reason is that we lack oversight to catch cheating and errors in some cases.

Okay, so you don't know if the election was "fair." Now what? Why should your uncertainty compel the rest of us to conclude that Biden didn't win the election?

Not knowing if the elections are fair leads to not knowing that someone won a "fair" election. Yes, Biden won, but was it fair?

Further, you've defined "fair" to mean "there was no fraud or errors," which is not what most people mean by fair. On that extreme definition, there has likely never been a "fair" election in the entire history of the United States, or possibly anywhere else in the world, since small-scale fraud and mistakes occur in pretty much every election.

Just a few points in response:
- First, I would say that it is presumptuous to say that "most" people would define "fair" the same as you. Even if 1 or 2 members agreed with you (and that's all I've seen here), then that doesn't constitute being "most people".
- Second, I went into more detail on what I meant by a fair election. My standard involves elections having enough oversight in places where we KNOW there is potential for fraud and errors. If trying to ensure that there is no way to cheat is an "extreme" then the extreme is the correct standard to have. It's certainly better than being negligent by lacking oversight to catch errors and cheating in areas where there is potential for it. I've proven that we lacked oversight for this election and presumably that also applies to past elections, as well.

In fact, I will even say that had Trump took my position and used my supporting point for it (as opposed to claiming that there was cheating), then he and his team would have increased their potential for success with the courts and at finding errors and fraud. The reason I say this is because the one court case that Trump won was in regards to oversight. This was the case about observers in Philadelphia.

As I pointed out back in post #14 over a month ago, this is simply mistaken. Of the 60 lawsuits filed by Team Trump, the only one they won was on shortening the timeframe for curing ballots in Pennsylavania from nine days to six days.

Again, the lawsuit you're thinking of was overturned by the Pennsylavania Supreme Court on appeal. Trump lost every single one of his cases regarding oversight or fraud.

I stand corrected on the court case. However, one reason I brought up that court case earlier in the thread was because of the observers not being close enough to observe exactly what's going on. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision did not decide on that matter, but rather they made a decision that the county election board didn't have to place the observers close to the poll workers. If anything, this ruling took away from transparency by leaving it open for the observers to be kept far from the workers just as long as they were in same room. Here's the info. on that:

Republican observers said they were kept so far back, behind a waist-high fence, that they couldn't see any of the details on ballot envelopes or reach any conclusions about whether vote counting procedures were correctly followed. The Trump campaign sued, and a state appeals court said the observers were not given enough access. It ordered the county to move the fence closer to the counting tables.

But the state Supreme Court reversed that ruling by a vote of 5-2. It said Pennsylvania law requires only that observers must be allowed "in the room" where ballots are counted but does not set a minimum distance between them and the counting tables. The Legislature left it up to county election boards to make these decisions, the court said.

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-e ... s-n1248046

I know you also pointed me to a video of a city official saying that observers could observe, but he didn't specify if it was at close quarters (:45 minute mark to 1:15) which is what my entire point was about. There's no point in having observers if they can't see what's being counted.

Also, the one state where he was successful at getting a recount found thousands of uncounted votes.

Yeah, mistakes happen, which is precisely why states like Georgia do an automatic recount when the results of an election are close. These almost always reveal processing or tabulation errors that correct the results by a few hundred -- or in rare cases maybe a couple thousand -- votes.

I know that mistakes can happen, but to not even scan ballots can also occur as a result of fraud. Not sure how you made the determination between the two. If the results weren't close then this "mistake" or fraud would not have been caught which is another problem I brought up. We have not done recounts in states like Pennsylvania, to determine the extent of mistakes or fraud.

Also, you assume that mistakes would only amount to hundreds of ballots. Before we found errors happening involving thousands of ballots, you would've said these mistakes would only involve 100s of ballots. Why couldn't it involve tens of thousands? The reason we don't say that it occurs that much yet is because it hasn't happened yet; it's not that it can't happen.

[historia]

Have you now concluded that Biden won?

I have no problem accepting that Biden wins once all of the processes for making it official are completed.

Yes, Biden won,

What made you change your mind two weeks early?

but was it fair?

I agree with Ben Sasse here:

We have good reason to think this years election was fair, secure, and law-abiding. Thats not to say it was flawless. But there is no evidentiary basis for distrusting our elections altogether, or for concluding that the results do not reflect the ballots that our fellow citizens actually cast.

Back to your points:

Further, you've defined "fair" to mean "there was no fraud or errors," which is not what most people mean by fair. On that extreme definition, there has likely never been a "fair" election in the entire history of the United States, or possibly anywhere else in the world, since small-scale fraud and mistakes occur in pretty much every election.

Just a few points in response:

- First, I would say that it is presumptuous to say that "most" people would define "fair" the same as you.

Actually, what I said was most people would disagree with your definition. According to Morning Consult, "63 percent of voters overall say the 2020 election was free and fair," which means they don't define "fair" the same as you.

- Second, I went into more detail on what I meant by a fair election. My standard involves elections having enough oversight in places where we KNOW there is potential for fraud and errors.

As I pointed out back in post #16, even if we put in place the most stringent voter identification laws and implemented the most robust election oversight imaginable, that still wouldn't guarantee "there was no fraud or errors." So even your recommendations wouldn't result in a "fair" election, as you have defined it.

If trying to ensure that there is no way to cheat is an "extreme" then the extreme is the correct standard to have.

Striving toward an ideal is not extreme. Saying that no election in the history of the United States -- or potentially anywhere in the world -- has ever been "fair" because no election has completely met that ideal is extreme.

I know that mistakes can happen, but to not even scan ballots can also occur as a result of fraud. Not sure how you made the determination between the two.

Mistakes are more likely than fraud. And in that particular case in Fulton County, Georgia, there was an incomplete box of early ballots that included both Biden and Trump votes, which is not what we would expect from fraud. The most likely explanation is that it was a mistake.

We have not done recounts in states like Pennsylvania, to determine the extent of mistakes or fraud.

Trump's legal team could have requested a recount in Pennsylvania -- they certainly raised more than enough money to pay for one. But they didn't. Why do you think that is?

Also, you assume that mistakes would only amount to hundreds of ballots.

No, I said recounts almost always change the results by a few hundred votes.

And I am not merely assuming that. This is simply the average amount of votes that have changed from recounts in recent decades.

Before we found errors happening involving thousands of ballots, you would've said these mistakes would only involve 100s of ballots.

No, recounts have historically shown mistakes involving thousands of ballots, but they typically don't change the results by more than a few hundred votes.

Why couldn't it involve tens of thousands?

The larger the discrepancy the more likely it is to be discovered, which makes the likelihood of tens of thousands of votes changing in a recount vanishingly low. This is like saying, if you can lose a quarter in your couch then you can lose a thousand dollars. But what is the likelihood you lost a thousand dollars in your couch?

What is the likelihood that a recount in Pennsylvania would shift the outcome by 80,000 votes?

[AgnosticBoy]

Yes, Biden won,

What made you change your mind two weeks early?

This point of mine here:
"You unreasonably assumed that Trump would never (at any point in time) turn up any evidence and you did so before the legal deadline for him to produce that evidence. Not having evidence on Nov. 3 (election night), doesn't mean he won't get the evidence by December 8 or 14 (electoral college vote)."

The deadline had passed and I made my comment regarding Biden's win well after that (Dec. 24 to be exact).

but was it fair?

I agree with Ben Sasse here:
Sasse"]
We have good reason to think this years election was fair, secure, and law-abiding. Thats not to say it was flawless. But there is no evidentiary basis for distrusting our elections altogether, or for concluding that the results do not reflect the ballots that our fellow citizens actually cast.

There's certainly a logical basis. How you gonna get the evidence of cheating, if you have no way to catch cheating in the first place in some cases? Secondly, there is some reason to raise doubts, like when it comes to lax standards like no ID requirement, no signature matching, keeping observers at FAR distances to at distances not good for observing, etc.

- First, I would say that it is presumptuous to say that "most" people would define "fair" the same as you.

Actually, what I said was most people would disagree with your definition. According to Morning Consult, "63 percent of voters overall say the 2020 election was free and fair," which means they don't define "fair" the same as you.

Saying that the elections were fair doesn't tell me what fairness is or involves. You again go on to presume that they meant different than me. Perhpas they may have the same or a similar standard to mine but just don't have the logic and evidence that I have (or they may disagree with it) to show that elections are unfair or to at least leave one not knowing. Was there even an option for not knowing if the election was fair?

- Second, I went into more detail on what I meant by a fair election. My standard involves elections having enough oversight in places where we KNOW there is potential for fraud and errors.

As I pointed out back in post #16, even if we put in place the most stringent voter identification laws and implemented the most robust election oversight imaginable, that still wouldn't guarantee "there was no fraud or errors." So even your recommendations wouldn't result in a "fair" election, as you have defined it.

How does having an election with NO fraud or errors standard equate to having oversight to cover KNOWN areas of cheating or the potential for it? Sure, having a standard where voter ID is required to vote may not catch ALL instances of voter ID fraud, but it would catch more or be better at that than not having any voter ID requirement at all. Having observers is better than not having any observers eventhough observers may not catch every instance of fraud.

Your earlier comments you were acknowledging there was no problem trying to have the best of security, but now it seems you're arguing as if it's pointless to have more security. That's naive and not proactive, to say the least, esp. given our concern for election interference from other countries.

If trying to ensure that there is no way to cheat is an "extreme" then the extreme is the correct standard to have.

Striving toward an ideal is not extreme. Saying that no election in the history of the United States -- or potentially anywhere in the world -- has ever been "fair" because no election has completely met that ideal is extreme.

Again, my position is that I don't know if our elections are fair. Please don't even consider this as some standard 'agnostic' position, but rather it's a conclusion reached from my applying a non-ideological and non-partisan assessment of the evidence.

Also, my standard on elections fairness is doing things when it comes to areas that you KNOW there is potential for cheating. If you knew there was an area for cheating, or the potential for it, would you do NOTHING? Or would you do something even if that something was not perfect? All I've been asking for is for RECOUNTS and for those to be done under bipartisan oversight, which is allowed under current law, and somehow you're acting as if that's some pie-in-the-sky standard. That could've been done last month, but it seems Trump spent more effort on relying on the courts to agree with his claims, rather than trying to get RECOUNTS under better oversight and letting that process prove if his claims were true.

I know that mistakes can happen, but to not even scan ballots can also occur as a result of fraud. Not sure how you made the determination between the two.

Mistakes are more likely than fraud. And in that particular case in Fulton County, Georgia, there was an incomplete box of early ballots that included both Biden and Trump votes, which is not what we would expect from fraud. The most likely explanation is that it was a mistake.

There were more votes for Trump. Based on the two instances I brought up, they would not have changed the the final result (and I know that after the fact, of course) but it just goes to show how things can be missed and that it took a RECOUNT to catch it.

We have not done recounts in states like Pennsylvania, to determine the extent of mistakes or fraud.

Trump's legal team could have requested a recount in Pennsylvania -- they certainly raised more than enough money to pay for one. But they didn't. Why do you think that is?

I'm sure i would get different reasons coming from Republicans and Democrats and I would brush off all of them as speculation until the actual RECOUNT took place or until Trump's team made that it known.

Also, you assume that mistakes would only amount to hundreds of ballots.

No, I said recounts almost always change the results by a few hundred votes.

And I am not merely assuming that. This is simply the average amount of votes that have changed from recounts in recent decades.

Your assumption is that recounts would only find a difference of votes in the hundreds. The flaw in your logic is that you're thinking that something can't happen, based on it not occurring to date. I gave you a valid example. Go back to the first time that thousands of votes were found uncounted. If your logic were correct, in that only 100s of votes were found from recounts, then that would mean that only 100s could ever possibly be found. So then how does that account for the time that thousands of votes are found uncounted?

Before we found errors happening involving thousands of ballots, you would've said these mistakes would only involve 100s of ballots.

No, recounts have historically shown mistakes involving thousands of ballots, but they typically don't change the results by more than a few hundred votes.

The point is you've still haven't proven why 10,000s of votes couldn't be found from a recount. Bringing up how many have been found from past recounts doesn't prove that numbers beyond that can't be found or that records can't be broken.

Why couldn't it involve tens of thousands?

The larger the discrepancy the more likely it is to be discovered, which makes the likelihood of tens of thousands of votes changing in a recount vanishingly low.

"Vanishingly low" sounds like a subjective probability assessment. Why isn't any discrepancy, small or large, discovered and investigated before declaring a winner? Also, all of these probabilities and scenarios you keep bringing up would depend on all of the factors, some of which we have to assume. The best scenario is to actually go through a recount or audit, or have adequate oversight in place to begin with, since even improbable things (or what we think are improbable things) can happen, just so we can be sure.

What is the likelihood that a recount in Pennsylvania would shift the outcome by 80,000 votes?

Not sure, but instead speculating on all of the factors, I'd rather have empirical verification.

[historia]

Yes, Biden won

What made you change your mind two weeks early?

This point of mine here:
"You unreasonably assumed that Trump would never (at any point in time) turn up any evidence and you did so before the legal deadline for him to produce that evidence. Not having evidence on Nov. 3 (election night), doesn't mean he won't get the evidence by December 8 or 14 (electoral college vote)."

The deadline had passed and I made my comment regarding Biden's win well after that (Dec. 24 to be exact).

Okay, but I asked you on December 16 (after "the deadline had passed"):

Have you now concluded that Biden won?

And you responded:

I have no problem accepting that Biden wins once all of the processes for making it official are completed.

Miles even asked you in post #24 which part of the process you still considered incomplete, to which you responded:

On Jan. 6, the Congress counts the electoral college and declares a winner. That's when the elections are officially validated.

If December 14 was your deadline for making a decision all along, why didn't you just answer my initial question on December 16 with "yes"?

[AgnosticBoy]

Yes, Biden won

What made you change your mind two weeks early?

This point of mine here:
"You unreasonably assumed that Trump would never (at any point in time) turn up any evidence and you did so before the legal deadline for him to produce that evidence. Not having evidence on Nov. 3 (election night), doesn't mean he won't get the evidence by December 8 or 14 (electoral college vote)."

The deadline had passed and I made my comment regarding Biden's win well after that (Dec. 24 to be exact).

Okay, but I asked you on December 16 (after "the deadline had passed"):

Have you now concluded that Biden won?

And you responded:

I have no problem accepting that Biden wins once all of the processes for making it official are completed.

Miles even asked you in post #24 which part of the process you still considered incomplete, to which you responded:

On Jan. 6, the Congress counts the electoral college and declares a winner. That's when the elections are officially validated.

If December 14 was your deadline for making a decision all along, why didn't you just answer my initial question on December 16 with "yes"?

I actually don't remember. I might have been confusing my point of when a winner (or loser) is official with the legal deadline to dispute the election. Either way, I'd think it would be reasonable and fair to wait until the legal deadline for Trump to dispute the election before drawing any conclusions on the outcome, esp. since it can have some bearing on if Biden wins.

I'm really not sure what big point you're trying to prove here. I feel confident that I've displayed how an honest agnostic would think by not engaging in partisan speculations (as if they are true) and being willing to suspend judgement until all of the facts are in.

[historia]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #38]

Apologies for the overly-long delay.

I'm really not sure what big point you're trying to prove here. I feel confident that I've displayed how an honest agnostic would think by not engaging in partisan speculations (as if they are true) and being willing to suspend judgement until all of the facts are in.

My overarching point is that the approach you are advocating -- where we have to wait for "all the facts to come in" before drawing any conclusions -- is impractical. And your criticism of those who don't follow that approach as "jumping the gun" or somehow being "partisan" is completely misguided.

If you stop and think about it, it's actually quite rare to have all the facts. Instead, the vast majority of the time we are confronted with an incomplete set of facts. That means we must necessarily form opinions and reach conclusions (tentatively in proportion to the evidence) by drawing inferences and making probabilistic assessments. That's how science works. That's how history works. That's how our courts work. And it's how you and I make countless decisions in our day-to-day lives.

Yours is what I like to call an epistemology of convenience. When you want to cast doubt on whether the election was fair, you define "fair" in absolute terms, requiring there be "no" fraud, "no" mistakes, and that we have "all" the facts. But when proposing certain election reforms, you define a "fair" election differently, saying it is one where there is "enough" or "adequate" oversight, even though, by your own admission, that wouldn't guarantee no fraud or mistakes. The latter definition is not a "more detailed" explanation of the former, as you suggested, but rather contradicts it. This is trying to have your cake and eat it too.

All I've been asking for is for RECOUNTS and for those to be done under bipartisan oversight, which is allowed under current law, and somehow you're acting as if that's some pie-in-the-sky standard.

No, I'm simply pointing out that your current argument contradicts the pie-in-the-sky standard for a "fair" election that you set out (twice) earlier in the thread. If that isn't the definition you want to use any more, it would be helpful if you explicitly retract it.

Moreover, recounts cost a lot of money. Many states, including Pennsylvania, do audits instead -- since they are statistically predictive of what a full recount would uncover but cost far less -- and only proceed to a full recount if the vote totals are within a certain margin or the audit reveals potential issues.

Finally, the Trump campaign had the option (and means) to request a full recount in Pennsylvania, just as they had the option to claim there was election fraud in their lawsuits in Pennsylvania court. They did neither. If the aggrieved party in this instance wasn't interested in a recount, I see no reason to withhold judgment on the fairness of the election without one.

No, I said recounts almost always change the results by a few hundred votes.

And I am not merely assuming that. This is simply the average amount of votes that have changed from recounts in recent decades.

Your assumption is that recounts would only find a difference of votes in the hundreds. The flaw in your logic is that you're thinking that something can't happen, based on it not occurring to date.

Again, this is simply mistaken. At no point have I said that this "can't" happen. I'm simply pointing out that the likelihood of vote totals changing by thousands (let alone tens of thousands) of votes in a recount is very low. That is not an assumption I am making, but a probabilistic assessment.

Pointing out that something is possible tells us very little. Lots of far-fetched scenarios are, broadly speaking, "possible." But we don't squander our limited time and resources trying to "disprove" every far-fetched possibility or conspiracy theory just to satisfy the most skeptical among us.

"Vanishingly low" sounds like a subjective probability assessment.

This is half-right. It's definitely a probability assessment, but, since it's based on objective data, it is not "subjective."

Your earlier comments you were acknowledging there was no problem trying to have the best of security

Indeed, I have no objection to most of the reforms you're proposing here, just as I have no problem implementing reforms that would make it easier for people to vote, like automatic voter registration. But I also don't think we should refrain from calling our elections "fair" or "free" now just because they could be marginally better in both respects.