Reply #14: Without the procedural integrity provided by the election protection folks

[Land Shark]

there is no moral or political claim to legitimacy.

(Democracy does not claim that the majority is correct -- on the contrary there's such a thing as "tyranny of the majority" and that's why we have Const rights in part to protect against. Because this substantive result has never been claimed to be just by democracy, whether the govt is just or somewhat unjust is justified by the procedural processes of the "consent of the governed". But when that process is corrupted, the whole house of cards falls, and the standing govt becomes illegitimate)

Therefore, if you believe that elections lack integrity, it follows directly from that there is no consent of the governed, and the govt lacks legitimacy.

Maintaining this to be the case sets incentives properly as well. Govts want to be legitimate, so they should fall all over themselves trying to create transparently legitimate election procedures.