Last sane words

When it comes to public institutions there are two ways to look at what their purpose is, namely by referring

1. to one's own subjective satisfaction and
2. to the objective satisfaction of the people.
   

For instance, a person's subjective satisfaction usually demands of the legal system to deliver what is right, while the objective satisfaction of the people expresses itself in the assessment that the legal system dealt with the matter at hand in the appropriate way. A man might be innocently convicted, yet the public may consider it a fair trial. But even though people usually agree on what is right, so that the subjective right is in that sense objective (natural law), the limits of human knowledge prevent any judge from letting himself be guided by his own subjective satisfaction. That is, if he is sane.

Similarly, when it comes to elections, the subjective satisfaction depends on seeing political action that one desires carried out, while the objective satisfaction of the people with an election expresses itself in their acceptance of its result. In this case people usually do not agree on what is desirable, but they agree that it would be a mistake to force the majority to do what the minority wants and that it should be the other way around. That is, if they are sane.

Is sanity a good worth defending? Or is insanity preferable?

If there is a public dispute the courts have to weigh in in such a manner as to dispel its roots, letting the evidence be laid out and then judge it according to the established norms. Otherwise the public has no reason to be satisfied with them and might just as well do away with the institution.

Since the established norm is innocent until proven guilty, it is unlikely that a judge should reach the verdict that it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that enough votes were illegally cast or counted in order to change the outcome of an election. However, since not only the acceptance of the judicial system is on the line but also that of the election process, the courts should decide whether election results are likely invalid or not and recommend a repeat under closer inspection in case they are. Alternatively, other institutions designated in the U.S. constitution might do the same thing, although if these are themselves elected like state senates it creates a rather curious situation in which one election decides on whether it is permissible to corrupt another one, where natural law really is in no doubt about the only right course.

Assuming that it doesn't come to any of this, that would prove that Americans have given up on their common interest and it would foreshadow a situation in which they wouldn't stand together when disaster strikes.