>>>Possibly, but that was not the point. I quoted extreme right-wing media to show you that not even them would make the claim that you did.
>
>The claim I made was that 70 skeletons voted in the recent elections. When I checked online, all I could find was allegations that 72 skeletons voted in the 2016 elections. My bad. I agree it's too early to say how many voted this time, but that's not the same as "none" as seems to be your interpretation.
>
>>>If you read closely the analysis of the Supreme Court decision process you'd see that the problem was not the purging of voter lists in itself, but the purging method, which was considered too aggressive and likely to result in a lot of false positives.
>
>... the Supreme Court says that what you call "purging" is not too aggressive and the state can go ahead.

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the state. The final decision was merely that "the state action complies with federal law", not that it was not too aggressive. However, if you read the transcript of the Supreme Court argument, perhaps you would have had more consideration for the issue, which would have prevented you from making a false claim.

>>>As for the recent special election, I wonder what stopped the "170 people over 116 years old" (that, allegedly, are still on the voting lists) from voting, especially since it was a much closer race than the 2016 election?
>
>I'm amazed that you've already conducted your investigation to determine that none of the 72 from 2016 voted this time. Of course you haven't: instead you subtly misrepresent the SC's decision and act as if you have proof that no skeletons voted, while you scold and label over a timing issue that doesn't change the point at all.

>A wise man once said ...

... that the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. I wonder what was your investigation to determine that the 72 did vote, other than "checking online"?
*