Here, for your convenience I quoted part where explains why are you so wrong. Feel free to ask questions if you don't understand some parts of it.

Originally Posted By: sini
“You do not have sufficient evidence that no shenanigans happened that influenced the outcome of the election”.

I have sufficient evidence: A) The Federal Election Commission endorsed tally of United States Electoral College is in, and it is 332 Obama to 206 Romney. These are official results; they are not disputed, are not in process of counting/recounting, are not being challenged in courts. B) Romney, an official GOP leader and the GOP presidential campaign nominee, conceded and acknowledged Democratic victory.

This is all evidence I need to be absolutely justified beyond any reasonable doubt that US 2012 election legitimately resulted in the victory for Democrats/Obama.

“You will undoubtedly claim that you cannot prove a negative, which is true but irrelevant here because you can create a strong case in this context - at least hypothetically.”

You are absolutely right that I will claim “you cannot prove a negative”, but you are unjustified in discounting it as irrelevant. Your line of reasoning – paraphrasing: “there is no strong evidence to suggest that there wasn’t any tampering occurred, hence tampering did occur and it did determined elections outcome as a result election was stolen” is a fallacious for following reasons. First, you are applying unreasonable standard of having evidence of no tampering. How would such evidence, aside from existence of undisputed official tally, look like? Second, you are asserting that magnitude of tampering was significant enough to change the outcome of historically not close (332 v 206) election. If we extend this reasoning to other, much closer, elections then we can conclude that most US elections were won because of tampering. I hope you’d agree that such result is an absurd conclusion. Third, this is formally invalid argument.

[Linked Image]