> Anyone who asserts an election was subject to fraud is attacking democracy itself. /s

I trust you are referring to problems with the 2020 election? I would appreciate learning what analogies you see between mob-like coercion and the election

Yes, for the most part. I do not think the doubts and suspicious anomalies are new or unique to the 2020 election, though.

As for the mob-like coercion, I don’t think there was this same kind of intimidation going on in 2020. I was using this concrete example of election fraud to refute the oft-touted assertion that voter fraud is vanishingly rare in the United States, and, it is never serious enough to affect an election.

In a naïve way I hope it opens the door to people being willing to accept the idea that if fraud can happen in big corrupt cities, it can happen elsewhere and we should tighten up our oversight laws.

Election irregularities are regular enough that fraud should be a plausible conjecture. Maybe the implicit goal is to limit obvious fraud enough to only make a difference in very close elections when the elect do not receive a big mandate one way or another and to maintain the fiction of votes making a difference.

Followup to "Election irregularities are regular enough that fraud should be a plausible conjecture."

I think increased interest in election integrity after a contested election are great to the extent that high integrity processes are the truth to which society should work towards. Disputes about specific irregularities post-election are less valuable and a generic response could be "well, you should have cheated better."