An audit is much, much better than simply proving fraud.
His suggestion is useful to prove that fraud exists, but does next to nothing to see what the result would've been without fraud. So it has value, but not nearly the value of a well-documented audit, which is able to show the results based on any observable set of rules, and whether the results would've changed or not.
Canvassing would allow for more people to personally experience the fraud and to get people more aware that something is happening now.
A full forensic audit is necessary to get to the bottom of exactly what happened and how, and the country needs to know that to finally be able to lay this issue to rest.
An audit is much, much better than simply proving fraud.
His suggestion is useful to prove that fraud exists, but does next to nothing to see what the result would've been without fraud. So it has value, but not nearly the value of a well-documented audit, which is able to show the results based on any observable set of rules, and whether the results would've changed or not.
I cannot see why not do both?
Canvassing would allow for more people to personally experience the fraud and to get people more aware that something is happening now.
A full forensic audit is necessary to get to the bottom of exactly what happened and how, and the country needs to know that to finally be able to lay this issue to rest.
Agreed.