Outrage is good if it leads to results. Change is often brought about by those most affected by bad policy. So, for starters, we need to stop equivocating what happened with conspiracy theories. More effort is being directed at the people complaining than the policies that lead to the complaining. That's absurd. We need to have a serious discussion about election integrity, but who is talking about it? Who is going to talk about it? We can't even have a discussion about what to do if we are all pretending fraud doesn't exist. I disagree with your either or scenario, but that aside, what should we do?

I will break this down into a few different issues.

Firstly, we need to stop breaking down election transparency, which means pushing back against changes that undermine our current system. We need to get rid of ballot harvesting, ballot curing, and universal mail-in voting, which includes processes like people requesting mail-in ballots for disinterested voters. If people don't want to vote, that's their choice, and we need to stop associating voter turn out with voter suppression (a democrat tactic).

Secondly, we should safeguard challengers right to observe an election. This not only includes their right to be present during all changes, but also includes protecting them from unfair removal, ensuring they are close enough to see what's going on, and clear access to any area being worked by an election official. It's ridiculous how many observers were harassed, threatened, and removed in democrat strongholds.

Thirdly, we need to ensure that our voting machines are secure. We can start by making sure they are not connected to the internet. We need to do a random audit of every type of machine after any election, and we need to do a full audit in the case of a contested election or where anomalies are found. Machines need to keep a log of data for ten years, and failure to do so needs to come with severe consequences.

Fourthly, we need to authorize full ballot audits in contested elections or areas with anomalies, which includes signature matching, and searching for suspicious votes. Some examples from the trials were batches of votes that were unfolded and looked printed. Wouldn't it be good to call a random sample of voters from that batch to see if they voted? We have the capacity to tie each vote to a person. There is no reason in this day and age to not have voter ID. We can watermark ballots and have chip ID that literally renders every ballot useless that doesn't have a card scan associated with it, but I digress.

These are 4 things off the top of my head, but are any of these things going to come to pass? Why not? Which party would object to most of them? You can't get this implemented because we can't even get the conversation going. They aren't hiding it well. We just aren't really looking for it.

---