Originally Posted By: sini
Formally:

(Premise 1) tampering did occur
(Premise 2) tampering determined election outcome
------
(Conclusion ) election was stolen

Is invalid.

P1 True
P2 True
------
C False

Such scenario is possible.

Election wasn't stolen, then it must be the case that ether tampering did not occur or tampering did not determine election outcome.

For example, there was nothing but tamperng from both sides, as there was no legitimate votes casted, not even a single one. In this case P1 and P2 are true, but C is false. As such, your argument is (formally) invalid.


huh...

You are trying to make an argument from final consequences here - trying to say that because the election wasnt stolen therefore the premise p1/p2 must be false.

Also, you are making another false analogy in your last text block, because perception of legitimacy is crucial + many vote were cast on paper establishing a body of comparatively incorruptible votes. So your example becomes absurd, and therefore is not useful.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)