In the US presidential election, amidst Trump's allegations of fraudulent elections, Georgia decided to recount. It is also known that 5-6 states that were fighting a fierce battle will be recounted one after another.

Georgia State Secretary of State Brad Lafensperger said in a press conference on the 6th of November (local time) that he would recount the gap between the presidential candidates, saying that the gap between the candidates is too small. In particular, Gabringel Sterling, chairman of the Georgia State Election Commission, also suggested a target deadline for completion of the recount, saying, "You should know how the state voted by the end of November."

U.S. quick recount, the election commission first… With about 99 percent of the votes counting in Georgia right now, Democratic candidate Joe Biden leads President Donald Trump by a marginal amount. Biden's 2,450,558 (49.4%) votes, while President Trump's 2,448,994 (49.4%) votes, the gap is only 1,564 votes. State law stipulates to be included in the table.

Wisconsin, Georgia, Nevada, and Pennsylvania are also likely to be recounted. The state of Wisconsin stipulates by law that a candidate may request a recount if there is a gap of less than 1%. Candidate Biden managed to beat President Trump in Wisconsin with 49.4 percent of the vote and by only 0.6 percentage points. In Pennsylvania, with 96% of the votes counted, candidate Biden is just 0.2% ahead of President Trump. Pennsylvania can recount if the gap is less than 0.5%. In addition, in Nevada, regardless of the gap, the defeated candidate can request a recount on the condition that it bears all the costs of recounting, so it is predicted that a recount will soon take place.

The reason for this rapid recount is a device to minimize confusion among the people and prevent a gap in state affairs.

"I don't know about the suspicion of a legitimate unfair election, and the Korean election commission and the judiciary are crushing, is this a country?"

With numerous suspicions that the April 15 general election was held as a total unfair election, it was rather that Korea preceded the United States that demanded for a recount was sprouted.

Former lawmaker Min Gyeong-wook, who ran as a member of the National Assembly in Incheon Research District, filed an application for preservation of evidence for the ballot box in Incheon Court on April 27, and immediately sent an election-free song to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office. In addition, 25 former and incumbent lawmakers participated in the lawsuit for invalidation of the election and the lawsuit for invalidation of the election, and filed for the preservation of evidence of ballots to recount in over 100 districts nationwide.

When a lawsuit begins with a suspicion of a fraudulent election, it is the Central Election Commission's task to actively clarify. However, rather than actively clarifying, the Korean NEC reluctantly releases a flimsy press release several months after the suspicion was raised, while excluding electronic counting machine experts. It was about holding a ceremony demonstration once. The more clarified by the NEC, the higher the level of criticism, and that even stopped at all.

Even the Central Election Commission of Korea refuses to submit key evidence such as ballot sorting machine (electronic counting machine), QR code source, web server, imaging file, and integrated electoral list, which must be investigated for fair judicial judgment, There is also suspicion that they tried to destroy evidence one step further.

On the other hand, the South Korean judiciary (President Kim Myung-soo) has been crushing the case for seven months by delaying the judicial proceedings for the alleged fraudulent election that was filed as soon as the election on April 15 was over.

Naturally, the election laws of the Republic of Korea require that judicial proceedings related to elections, like the United States, proceed quickly. In other words, election-related lawsuits are subject to judgment by the judiciary within 180 days. The Republic of Korea's judiciary has been lightly violating this, and as of early November, it has not conducted a single recount.

“If there is a suspicion of a fraudulent election, the Central Election Commission and the Supreme Court, which is obligated to promptly follow the procedure, are deliberately concealing the case and are watching the public opinion.” “Is this a country?”, this is where criticism comes out.

Any suspicion of a fraudulent election must be dealt with fairly and promptly. It is common sense that anyone who is suspicious of a fraudulent election requires a prompt decision by the judiciary. Currently, in about 100 electoral districts where the 21st National Assembly election was held, the people are applying for a recount without being able to accept the election results. In addition, a lawsuit has been filed for invalidating the 21st general election.

The 21st National Assembly, consisting of members of the National Assembly, who may have been elected by illegal elections, has been running for more than six months because the judiciary did not go through the recount procedure in time. If the unfair election turns out to be true, all the bills proposed by lawmakers who were unjustly elected in the 21st National Assembly could become invalid.

In the United States, it is not the only system in the United States to recount quickly in each state and to resolve the confusion of election complaints through meticulous judicial procedures. It is a device that has common sense to minimize confusion among the people in all countries in the world where judicial institutions exist. For some reason, the Korean judiciary has not carried out the common-sense procedure, which means that it is causing serious damage to the people.

Some argue that the Republic of Korea's judiciary (president Kim Myung-soo) could not hide its embarrassment while watching the current cases of election fraud and fraudulent elections taking place in the United States.

There have been allegations of unfair elections in both Korea and the United States, and the way the judiciary of the two countries copes with them is very different.

If the United States is actively recounting and trying to shake off the public's distrust, the Republic of Korea is evaluating that it shows a highly authoritative behavior in which it is taboo to raise allegations of unfair elections and put all the burden on the party raising the allegations.

"The US Judiciary and the NEC made a quick recount decision for states suspected of fraudulent elections in a position to minimize public discomfort." He said, "The Korean judiciary did not take any judicial proceedings until 7 months after the fraudulent election lawsuit was filed, and was only watching the government and public opinion, is it not too much?" The voices of the netizens are gaining strength.

Some say, "If a suspicion of a fraudulent election is raised as in the United States, it is normal to show an immediate reaction. If the 415 general election fraudulent lawsuit and requests for recounting are disregarded, the Korean judiciary will not be free from suspicion that it is an accomplice to cover up the fraudulent election.

Fn투데이는 여러분의 후원금을 귀하게 쓰겠습니다.