The whole concept of democracy has some serious flaws, which are being exploited mercilessly these days. (It is still probably just about the least bad of the possible political systems, but we probably need for there to be consequences for intentionally attempting to break the system for political advantage. Also, I don't think politicians lying should fall in the category of "free speech").
The idea that you might be able to ban lies in public life is predicated, consciously or unconsciously, on there being some kind of benevolent proactive God who can look down and tell humanity what is right. The need for a truly independent arbiter, which doesn't exist in the real world, is the key reason so many ideas for running a society fail. Systems that work reasonably well are the ones that have some amount of self correction inherent in them. They can still go off the rails, but less often.
Some lies are so obvious and blatant, they should be incontrovertible. However, in tribal societies people can't even agree what "woman" means any more.
To start somewhere, we could say that a statement that is provably untrue is a "lie". For example, claiming that there was cheating during an election without evidence to back it up.
That's an odd one to choose. There is lots of evidence, and sworn testimony. Maybe its all fake, but not investigating its veracity in a democracy is bizarre. Most of the court cases were thrown out due to a lack of standing, not because the evidence was successfully refuted.
Most of the court cases were thrown out due to a lack of standing, not because the evidence was successfully refuted.That is simply a false statement and is easily proven to be false. Simply count the number of court cases and determine whether the number of court cases dismissed because of a lack of standing exceeds the total number of cases / 2. I do not believe that you have done that. I believe that it is more likely that you are simply expressing a biased perception because (in large part) of lies being repeated so often. Therein lies the bigger problem.
Maybe its all fake, but not investigating its veracity in a democracy is bizarre.There is much that is simply wrong with that statement. First, it assumes that no investigations have taken place, which is, again, demonstrably false, Second, it suggests that the biased view that certain allegations, no matter how lacking of supportive evidence, should be investigated at whatever cost and for however long, if doing so is viewed as politically advantageous. Third is describing the practice of requiring evidence to support allegations as being bizarre. What is bizarre is that so many people, who know better, are acting like they really don't know better and have no problem wading into the unfounded conspiracy pool because they perceive some kind of personal gain in doing so.
The latter description distinguishes the "weasel" from the "loon". To be clear, I am not calling you either, I am referring to the talking heads and publicity hounds and wannabe "influencers", and, of course, the elected officials which condone and support such behaviors if not directly engaging in such behaviors, which some also do.