To the Editor:

Recently, Elise Stefanik, the US Congresswoman representing the North Country, made a public statement regarding her support for an initiative pushed by House Republicans in an attempt to contest the results of the Electoral College vote.

Many of us believe the election results are valid and certifiable. A number of decisions across the country, rendered by both Republican and Democratic judicial appointees, have discounted 59 of 60 challenges to the vote. The SCOTUS, has done the same with two. Her statement that people decide election outcomes stands in contrast to her support for a measure that seeks to overturn the majority vote.

Second, she states: “tens of thousands of voters” question the validity of the elections because of voter fraud and constitutional overstepping. According to Christopher Krebs appointed by the president to oversee election security and USAG William Barr, serious substantiated proof of voter fraud does not exist.

What she does not address are the pre-election efforts of the president meant to instill doubt in the results of the election. Throughout his campaign, he repeatedly stated that he would lose only if the election was “rigged.” Any advertising executive will say that no matter how fallacious, if you hammer people with a “sales pitch” enough, they’ll accept it as truth.

Third, she states that in protesting the Electoral College ballot results, she is upholding the US Constitution. By raising unsubstantiated objections, she is actually attempting to negate the election results and the deciding votes of a majority of Americans, and negating an important provision of the US Constitution: Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3, which describe the makeup and functions of the Electoral College.

Lastly, in the so-called “battleground” states, almost all the down ballot incumbents, Republican and Democratic and including Ms. Stefanik, were reelected to office. This contradicts her statements regarding the validity of millions of ballots; if the ballots in those states are to be discounted, then the reelection of a number of her colleagues should be discounted.

It is Ms. Stefanik’s right to raise valid questions regarding the electoral process, However, it is increasingly obvious that this is a purely partisan attempt to cripple the incoming administration before it has even begun the difficult work ahead. By supporting this initiative Ms. Stefanik is giving support to the increasingly unbridgeable divisions that threaten the democratic processes and Constitutional provisions she professes to believe in.

Donald Borsh

Potsdam