Re: Election deniers:
Without attempting to cause a backlash, I want to bring
@Joe Bryant 's question back to the main point.
He asked if election deniers are bad? I think so because lack of confidence in an election undermines the entire system of the people of the country.
But I also want to caution to not talk about this particular topic in the way it has popularly been termed by the left. The "election denier" term has become a parroted chant from the left, to the point it has been stated ad nauseam about how there are so many republican "election deniers". I think it is unfair to paint this in this way because although it is being used against Republicans right now, it is actually something that was brought largely to the forefront when Hillary lost in 2016 and Abrams in Georgia. So, the accusing side is actually the ones who brought this drink to the party.
Before that, it was not an issue to that degree. Which brings up the obvious. If either or both political parties TRULY want to defeat the issue instead of just complaining about its possible existence, then the simple answer is to
stop pushing federal election reform. Understand why , although to those not paying attention, that may sound counter-intuitive, it is the answer.
The states, individually, are in charge of their local and state elections. As it should be. They are there with eyeballs on each particular scenario where one size doesn't fit all and they set the rules to maintain integrity in elections. A sweeping of federal rules would open the door immensely for a fraud that is able to be applied in one area or state to be copy and pasted all across the country, making the situation worse. As it is now, what you MIGHT be able to rig in Wisconsin certainly won't fly under New York or Kentucky's rules. Voter ID as an example. Why is there such an enormous push to allow votes without Id, updated roll logs, signatures, etc? Would it not be simpler to say "i know the vote is legit because I saw the ID matched"? That isn't hindering ANY legitimate voter. You can't argue that it oppresses people in voting, yet they have no problem whatsoever having an ID handy to buy liquor, get a utility turned on, etc.
Truly fixing the issue is as simple as using common sense on what should be required for something as important as it is. And curtailing corruption is as simple as putting as many safeguards in place as reasonable-in this case allowing 50 states, not one fed government to act as overseers. But the conflict of doing the common sense thing is that it flies in the face of what one political party wants-more government control. This is why it is an issue. It is abundantly transparent as to the angle being sought.