France’s Constitutional Council rejects citizens’ allegations of electoral fraud due to outdated law

Everyone has heard of this famous inconsistency between the results displayed on the evening of the elections by the public channel France 2, presented as being directly linked to the Ministry of the Interior, and the final results given… by the same Ministry of the Interior, a few tens of minutes later, where Marine Le Pen had mysteriously lost more than a million votes.

Indeed, the electoral law provides that only a candidate (or a representative of the State) can contest the results of an election after the close of the poll. Here we come across an oversight or a gap in French law: citizens are strangely excluded from the control of a central process of democracy.

The French results processed… in the USA!

As Maud Marian, co-editor in chief of the appeal against the result of the presidential election, points out, this legal void poses serious problems in view of the evolution, and especially of the computerization of the electoral process itself.

Concerning voting machines, his colleague Tarek Koraitem has already explained to us the troublesome legal problems: illegal installation of voting machines, vagueness about the methods of control of these machines, total uncertainty about their operation and their regularity.

Concerning the computer processing of the results after the counting, Maud Marian raises another embarrassing point: the aggregation of the results by the Ministry of the Interior escapes all control, and is carried out on servers… hosted in the USA, under American control. !

Those who remember the protests when the results were counted during the last American presidential election will not be reassured.

The law hasn’t kept up with the technology

As we can see, French electoral law is outdated and completely ignores the problems posed by technological innovations that have occurred since the adoption of the Constitution in 1958… Which makes for a heck of a lot of changes to incorporate.

Maud Marian, Carlo Brusa, and the group of lawyers who prepared the appeal before the Council, have the merit of proposing “praetorian” changes, that is to say, decided by the judge, to adapt the law to its climate.

Very surprisingly, this request, which seems legitimate, is currently blocked by the registry of the Constitutional Council, which has announced its intention not to forward it to the Council. Such a refusal can only fuel suspicion and, as Maud Marian reminds us, democracy has every interest in purging the electoral process of any toxic suspicion.



Published on Liberty Beacon from

Source: TLB.

Comments are closed.