You’d think a hegemony with a 100-years tradition of upkeeping democracy against major non-democratic players, would have some mechanism that would prevent itself from throwing down it’s key ideology.

Is it really that the president is all that decides about the future of democracy itself? Is 53 out of 100 senate seats really enough to make country fall into authoritarian regime? Is the army really not constitutionally obliged to step in and save the day?

I’d never think that, of all places, American democracy would be the most volatile.

  • merc
    2·
    12 hours ago

    How do you know that the people in charge didn’t check? Just because there wasn’t a big announcement doesn’t mean that there weren’t sanity checks done on the process. It’s likely that was done and that the results seemed to be legit, so there was no need to do more.

    • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nzEnglish
      11·
      12 hours ago

      How do you know that the people in charge didn’t check?

      Because the letter we both read says so:

      Audits will be conducted in some of the most scrutinized states, but in key states they will not be conducted in a timely way that could reveal any concerns with the vote count. In addition, in most states the audits are insufficiently rigorous to ensure any potential errors in tabulation will be caught and corrected, and they cannot be considered a safeguard against the security breaches that have occurred.

      Given these facts, the only guarantee for rigorous, effective audits of the vote in the swing states will be through candidate-requested statewide hand recounts.

      • merc
        1·
        2 hours ago

        There’s a difference between an “audit” and a basic sanity check. You wouldn’t do an audit unless there was strong evidence there is something worth auditing.