A Full Investigation Is Warranted

Dear Editor,

The 2020 election had too many irregularities to ignore.  In order to restore election confidence, a serious investigation must be conducted.  Many fear an investigation would disenfranchise Democratic voters.  Failing to investigate disenfranchises Republican voters.   The disenfranchisement was caused by those who illegally changed voting laws.  Investigating the result was inevitable.

Why are legal challenges occurring after, not before, the election?  Some judges refuse to hear cases for mere possibilities.  They will not hear unless something “breaks” afterward.  We saw this in pre-Georgia Senate runoff challenges.  Also, many of the accusations/concerns could not have been imagined.  Remember, judges ordered allowing observers access.  These court orders were ignored.  Who could predict observers would be rejected in a “fair” mature democracy?  The sheer total of irregularities is questionable.  Any one concern could easily be excused for have little effect.  The total number of issues is frightening.  The amount of issues could not be foreshadowed.

Signature verification is subjective.  It is a poor security substitute for in-person voting.  The results of Georgia signature matching is unsurprising.  Pressure to not challenge previous determinations/accuracy would reduce objectivity.

The Pennsylvania Senate hearing demonstrated voting machines could produce inaccurate paper ballots. Recounting inaccurate paper ballots would change little.  We need to see how many Republicans and Democrats left their presidential choice “blank” in the concerned counties.  We need statistics on how many straight ticket down ballots resulted in opposite party presidential votes.  The auditors should call the individuals leaving the presidential selection blank to determine if purposeful or not.  We should compare percentages of those who voted for different party down ballot than president party to those percentages in other counties within the concerned states.

Other statistics we need are statistics on how many mail-in votes were rejected in Republican counties versus Democrat counties within the states.  It is likely that late out-of-court settlements were not communicated to all counties.  We need to know how this effected the results.  Not all Trump supporters voted in person.

Finally, many have argued that Trump’s huge lead evaporating was not unusual due to widespread mail-in balloting being new.  They argue these changes occurred as a result of a new process.  However, the new process can also be a smoke screen to excuse fraudulent behavior.  Either way, this should have been better planned, better implemented, and passed by state legislators.

Alan Burke