Ah - agreed. The people "applying standards", of course, were the local county election boards and such. It was indeed Ms. Harris' job to see to it that those standards were applied correctly.
For example, a few counties wished to have a deadline extended for the purpose of completing a hand-recount. Another way of saying this is that they wanted standards altered (the "deadline" is a component of "standards", is it not?) under which - or in this case, for how long - they could count and re-count ballots. Ms. Harris said no. She was Correct in doing so.
She was Correct, because she followed the Law (instead of disobeying or disregarding or altering the law in order to allow those counties to change their standards). Correctness and following the Law are one and the same.
This is precisely what I have been saying this whole time; perhaps I could have phrased it better?
Let me say it like this: as long as Ms. Harris followed the Law, she was Correct. If you are going to argue that Ms. Harris was Wrong, you must point to an instance in which she failed to follow the Law. Fair enough?
They can blow the call, but there's no one with legal standing to reverse them if they do.
There is something slippery in your usage of "blow the call". One way to "blow the call" is to disobey/disregard the Law. This, Ms. Harris did not do (unless you are prepared to argue otherwise?)
The problem is, that is not even what the leftists and media types mean when they imply Ms. Harris "blew the call" in the first place. Their main gripe against Ms. Harris has nothing to do with whether she followed the Law at all (even though it must, seeing as how following the Law was her one and only responsibility). Their main gripe is that, in their view, the numbers which she ended up certifying are different from numbers which they wish she had ended up certifying.
They say she "got it wrong" not because they can credibly argue that she failed to uphold the Law, but merely because they don't like the numbers. They think the numbers were "really" something else, whatever that could possibly mean.
The problem is, again, as long as Ms. Harris obeyed the Law, she cannot be "wrong". Her only responsibility was to obey the Law in the first place. Having done so, there is no "wrong". (The "right" - i.e. Legal - Vote tallies are created by the legal process of certification, so they simply cannot differ from the certified numbers!)
What's at stake here in the denial of such truisms? What's so threatening about this picture that the leap to social contructivism seems inescapable to you?
That's a fair question and I'll try to answer it. For me, the argument becomes threatening the moment a person starts mentioning the "ballots" as if they are, or should be, on equal footing with Votes. PianoMan above alludes to the problem with this view: "arbitrariness".
It's all well and good to want the Vote tallies to conform to what Actually Happened, ballot-wise. Indeed, that should be the goal. However, it's equally important, in any fair contest, for the Rules governining vote-counting to be set before the contest begins. Otherwise we get chaos. We get shifting standards, ongoing disputes, and meanwhile the physical evidence (the ballots) becomes degraded, fooled with, altered. This is dangerous.
That is why I must insist on following the Law, as the only arbiter of what is a Vote, and what is not. These papers, these ballots, are not Votes. And yes, to think otherwise is something I would consider "threatening". That way lies Balkanization.
IMO you've given ConsistentLibertarian enough of your time and the continuing attacks are unwarranted.