> I would encourage anyone from Argentina

Surely you meant Venezuela?

Thank you! I had just been reading on another site about the US and it's "involvement" in a previous election in Argentina. Appreciate the correction. Oh my, I need to step away from the computer today. :/

We're still clinging to this in 2024? Wow.

If you consider the US election to clearly not have been rigged, then you should question the legitimacy of the signs listed in the top level comment.

If the signs don't convince you that the US election was rigged, they shouldn't convince you of other elections being rigged, either.

(I'm not from the US and don't care much about the US election. But I do think that the comment which sadly was flagged made a valid point about the signs not being useful indicators if they also apply to elections which are not rigged.)

Suppose there was legitimacy to this, which many believe, why wouldn’t we still talk about this in 2024? Are we not allowed to discuss history?

By 2024, most people should have figured out that there wasn't legitimacy to this.

Why? What happened in 4 years that revealed to everyone beyond a doubt that it wasn’t legitimate?

Where I live, no one questions that the election was rigged. Most believe it was. I haven’t done enough of my own research to know one way or the other.

Losing 60 out of 60 court cases that claimed election fraud should have been a data point. (Or 60 data points.)

The key is that every single challenge has been debunked, often in court and often by Republican judges. When every challenge has been debunked, it's time to accept that the vote was fair.

The problem is that it's too easy to hallucinate new challenges. It's easy to claim some guy stuffed ballot boxes with no evidence, and if people want to believe that, they will unless given irrefutable proof to the contrary. But how do you prove irrefutably that Fidel Castro definitely did not stuff all the ballot boxes? Apparently, you can't.

It's a bit like discussing whether God exists. Ya lots of people believe it and you can certainly talk about it. But this isn't really a forum for that kind of conversation.

People still complain about Brexit constantly in British newspaper comment sections.

I have family who volunteered as international election monitors and these are the criteria they used as well. Ironic, really. I've been against electronic voting for over a decade for the same reasons.

It's a ritual that if you don't do it correctly and with integrity, you get challenges to the results. Only question is how those challenges manifest.

This criteria is erroneous as the 2020 US election proved. The UN updated its Election Observation standards, and Venezuela's election mostly passes them.

Which criterion specifically was violated during that election? A lot of people seem to think there was a delay in reporting results, but there's a differences between a reporting delay and a counting delay. Most districts report counts incrementally, so if it's taking a long time to open thousands of envelopes, and it's a close race, you get incremental updates, but no final verdict until enough are counted.

Also, a crucial difference in the US is that each party sounds poll watchers to every single polling station to watch people count the results.

Would be very interested to know if there are any serious claims that any of these other criteria were violated

"so if it's taking a long time to open thousands of envelopes, and it's a close race, you get incremental updates, but no final verdict until enough are counted."

Exactly. The criterion is delay in announcing results, but the election was legitimate so there's an issue with the criterion.

"there's a differences between a reporting delay and a counting delay."

not relevant to the standard

I would say there's a very meaningful difference between "they're still counting the results, and releasing incremental counts, and all is being watched by poll watchers" vs. "we've finished counting, but we're not releasing the results for a while, and nobody is monitoring the process". The former sounds great. The latter sounds very suspicious.

Maybe it's just an issue in how the standards are interpreted by some people.

Last year there was this HN post about people's efforts to validate results of the Nigerian elections.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35272227

One more tell tale sign is if a particular candidate's vote count correlates to voter turnout. That is a good sign of ballot box stuffing. [i.e. a candidate gets a higher percentage of the vote in districts with higher turnout]

Couldn't it also just be one party being very "organised" in that area and getting their people out to vote?

7. Outliers. Like in the recent Romanian votes, in the same building there were 4 booths. On 3 of them a party got around 150 votes each, on the fourth zero. But did the authorities care? No, because it's not their party.