“There is a profound, unbridgeable disagreement between two factions here. One faction is not willing to prioritize authenticating the vote above all else. That faction is more willing to accept perceived social alignment and convention – not dispositive situational proof – as the basis for agreeing to the most important decisions about governance, such as who shall take office.
That set of motivations tacitly assumes that there is little meaningful consequence for accepting voting outcomes that may well have been shaped by fraud.
The other faction cannot agree to be governed by a voting outcome produced by fraud. This faction is motivated by the certainty that to accept such a thing is to be governed by lies and corruption, and cannot turn out well by any calculation. It’s worth fighting against a potentially fraudulent outcome, and not merely taking notes on it and hoping to do something about it later.” – Retired Naval Intelligence Officer J. E. Dyer