Point Nine to True Election Integrity: New Reporting Requirements for Transparency (The Raffensperger Rules)
With eight practical steps, including four banned practices, behind us, we will now put two final procedural items in place to round out the ten points for cleaning up our elections. This point is a simple, yet critical piece of the puzzle. Though it seems like common sense for elections to be decided transparently, with citizens not waiting days or weeks for election results to finalize or for states to flip in the wee hours of the morning with the losing candidate well ahead when nearly every viewer finally retired for the evening, new rules and laws must be established.
We must introduce new reporting requirements to provide transparency, and thereby prevent election fraud. Narrow margins in swing states can be and often are swung by major metro areas that have held back election results, creating suspicion that administrators were waiting for as many smaller counties to report their vote tallies as possible before dumping enough votes to win the election, supported by a massive population base to draw phantom ballots from. Philadelphia County is easily able to overwhelm Republican margins in most of the state, especially when afforded four days to “count” ballots, and thereby decide the state by itself. The same can be said of a competitive political atmosphere in Georgia, and its capital, Atlanta (Fulton County and surrounding metro area). Imagine if 65 counties in Pennsylvania waited for Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties to release their election results, and then dropped results that inverted all races in the state immediately. Do you think there would be backlash and gnashing of teeth from the childish left?