What would you consider proof for the alleged claim, "The election was not rigged"?
I would hope for a review of the data that allows someone ro confidently make that claim. As you point out, you can't prove a negative. In general that's true. In practice, depending upon the negative being claimed, you can. It's the monkey in the room argument.
In order to disprove the claim, "there's no monkey in that room " all you'd need to do is look in the room.
If all you need is a review of the data to be proof that the election was not rigged, then you have your proof.
The election was reviewed by each and every secretary of state and subsequently certified by those put in the position of authority to certify the election results. Every main stream media outlet has suggested they've reviewed the data and made the same alleged claim. Therefore, using your standard, the alledged claim that "The election was not rigged," has been proven.
However, your standard is not reasonable. Can someone review the data and make an incorrect determination? Yes. Could the one doing the reviewing be lying? Yes. Have blinders? Yes. Missed something accidentally or on purpose? Yes. A review of data is not proof of a claim.
"The monkey is in the room" can be proven. You look in the room and he's there. You can point to him. Take a picture. Touch him. See him. Hear him.
"The monkey is not in the room" cannot be proven. You might have not seen him, or heard him, or touched him. You may have just missed him, overlooked him. You have no photos. If you take photos, maybe he moved to out of the frame before you clicked the button. A lack of evidence isn't proof of the negative counter claim. What was the saying? An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? This applies.
Wow, we've gone rather far afield here and it's partially my fault. Please allow me to quote the article's author when he explains his position on the election.
Let me begin by repeating something I said to Sullivan: I do not actively disbelieve in the outcome of the 2020 election. I do not assert that the election was stolen. I also do not believe the election was totally fair, “belief” being an affirmative mental state. I say only that I don’t know; I haven’t been convinced either way. One side tried to convince me and failed (at least so far). The other side has made no such attempt but instead mostly shouts in my face that I must believe. The latter effort, in addition to being aggravating and insulting, has been less effective.
I think that sums it up pretty well and is also very close to what I've been trying to say. Neither side has convinced me of their rightness. It's to the point that it's moot.
Yeah, I get it.
The assumption should be, given all that is legally done to ensure election integrity, that the election was not rigged. However, I believe it was rigged and I've seen evidence that should have been looked into, but wasn't. So, I can believe whatever I want to believe, but there is no actual proof of a rig. Plenty of evidence, no proof. Mostly because those in charge of using the evidence to prove it was rigged seem unwilling to do so.
We live in a country that depends on checks and balances to keep the elections free and fair and if both sides seem intent on an agreed outcome, that's the outcome that we get. It looks like both sides wanted Trump gone. So, he's gone.
(post is archived)