One of the trolls I encounter online repeats the mantra that if we are to allege electoral fraud, the burden of proof is on the accuser. No matter how strong the evidence, nor how much of it there is, the mantra remains the same. Prove it. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the standard.
No. When it comes to electoral integrity, and accusations of fraud, that’s backward. Those who count the votes must prove that the numbers they report are accurate. If they cannot, then the election results must be discarded as untrustworthy. Another, more reliable — utterly reliable — election must occur.
When I worked in an accounting department, one of our monthly products was the cash flow report. It told the investors how much money came in and how much went out. It would not have been acceptable to simply tell them, you lost ten thousand dollars from your bank account this month. The investors demanded proof. Where did the money go? Why did it go?
The owners demanded, and got, proof of the following: how much debt was collected? Why not more? How much revenue was received? Why not more? Where are the receipts? What are the cash management procedures? Were they followed? Why so much expense for office supplies? Can we do with less? Can we get a better price from another supplier? Anything that they asked, the accountants had to answer to the satisfaction of the investors, and the investors would pounce on any irregularity. People could be fired, or even charged with crimes. It was serious business indeed. It was cash.
Election officials have the same responsibility to the voting public. It is no more acceptable for them to say “trust me” than it would be for an accountant to shrug off investor doubts about the accuracy of the financial reports. It is serious business indeed. It is our republic.
Audit elections like we audit corporations…
Views: