Every time I hear this argument I get confused by lawyers.
Sure the constitution says cast votes.
They forget to say that the same constitution says exactly how the votes are supposed to be dealt with.
ie 1. opend the presidential vote, count, seal it
obviously that by itself says that a rejected vote is not considered to be a cast vote.
I know ODM wants to win this election by any means necessary. But using such things is an example of the folly of electing them.
You don't have to win an election by hook and crook.
There were rules to engagement that were laid down before the election began.
Your own agents agreed that a particular vote was to be rejected. It doesn't matter if that number was 1 or 50 million. A rejected vote is a rejected vote.
I find those trying to use this argument to be insincere to the core.
Jose: If I make it through this thug life, I'll see you one day. The Lord is the only way to stop the hurt.