Your belief that I am a mafioso is still something I need to prove wrong in order to persuade others that I am correct and you are a Mafioso. No one seems to be voting for anyone else, after all. Obviously, people aren't listening to logic - like Ziazca, although that just makes me a little suspicious considering s/he is now promoting a double lynch - and therefore I need to convince them of my innocence before I can present my argument of you being a Mafioso.
You mentioned you wanted to prove your innocence, but the only thing I have is my conviction against you. So once again, logically speaking, your innocence is proven by a lack of evidence outside of suspicion.
Now stay with me here.
If logic dictates that, why is it that you need to prove your innocence, unless of course you had something going against you, like a mafia role?