> There are strict laws regulating police and poll workers while the polls are open. Police are not allowed within 100 feet of the polling location, unless they're actively voting or there on official business at the request of the election board. Additionally, anyone working at the polls in an official capacity is not allowed to wear any clothing with political messaging. One of the officers who showed up earlier in the day was wearing a hoodie with the American flag on it, and the US armed forces oath of enlistment printed in place of the white stripes. As they were leaving, I pulled the officer aside and asked him to remove the hoodie before making his next stop, politely explaining the law.
The linked PDF of rules says that the following isn't allowed:
> Wearing a t-shirt or button supporting a candidate, campaign, or political party (except voters in the act of voting)
The American flag with the military oath of enlistment isn't any of those. I'd probably get upset as well if some poll worker tried to tell me I'm not allowed to wear the American flag on my clothes.
A simpler example might be a flag with 52 stars. It's blatantly political, even though it would likely be harder to notice than the hoodie I looked up.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/119415827607659191/
(whether that's the exact same hoodie, who knows, but it matches the description close enough)
They just can't support a candidate or political party.
The flag of the United States is not adulterated with text or anything else in place of its stripes, stars, and field.
I could give you a billion examples where it is. Just do a Google image search.
"Since Tuesday, she has become known as the “Topless Voter.”
The woman, who ripped off her T-shirt after objections that it was too political to wear inside the Exeter polls, said she has no regrets.
“I said, ‘Well then, can I vote naked?’ He turned to me and said, ‘If you want to.’ So I took off my shirt,” she said.
She said she kept on her mask because removing it would have been “unhealthy.”"
https://www.unionleader.com/news/politics/voters/topless-vot...
Aha! Even more electioneering - where does it end with this woman? :)
It seems similar to someone wearing clothing that contained text of the Pledge of Allegiance, the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence. Yes, we know the right wing loves this stuff but I really don't think it rises to the level of 'electioneering'.
In fact, the guy was probably thinking 'Here's another lefty that hates the United States and the military'. It really does seem like there was some (unconscious?) bias at play here.
Denver != Pennsylvania, obviously, but perhaps it's a federal law? I don't really know where the rule comes from.
Anyway, overall takeaways working were: 1. everyone was super friendly and it was a great experience and 2. Denver+Colorado really have their shit together when it comes to elections. It's easy to vote, there's a paper trail for everything, and the default is by mail. Everyone should do it like we do.
Source: am an SF election inspector.
That said, it’s all up to the specifics of state law.
The US military is not a partisan tool nor a domestic political estate, so that message is not overtly supportive of one candidate or the other.
A tap on the shoulder and a polite comment seem well justified to me, and another poll worker agreed.
Veteran here, served during the contentious 2000 election. The US military very strongly prides itself on being an apolitical entity.
There's an important distinction between the electorate having differing opinions about the role and size of the military and the scope of its missions, and the military itself being a political entity.
>Author here. The military is a political entity, and different voters have different opinions on.
The USA is a political entity that different voters have different opinions on. The city, state, school district, utility district, sanitst district, etc. are all political entities that different voters have different opinions on.
The specific guidelines you linked on electioneering do not ban flag t-shirts, or anything military related (the military is not a candidate, campaign, or political party, and is strictly apolitical).
It's unconscionable that election officials are publicly admitting to breaking election code in 2020.
It isn't. Bruce Schneier has written about how online voting is a terrible idea in general [0], and how real-world attempts at it are often woefully incompetent. [1][2] Voting should remain paper-based.
[0] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/04/securing_elec...
[1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/12/election_mach...
[2] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2020/02/voatz_interne...
I would much prefer a seemingly archaic system that, at the cost of annoyances and delays, at least provides us with a reasonable sense of conviction that the results are accurate.
I expect the same thing to happen after this election. Once things calm down, several states are going to improve their processes.
I'd say we have that now, since there may be 50 election systems, but we generally know which 5 are going to be important ahead of time. And that selection of states aren't necessarily the best equipped.
The pre-canvass part: opening mail in ballots, verifying them, preparing them for tabulation, can be securely done before the election. Most states with substantial mail in already do this. That means on Election Day, workers merely have to tabulate ballots which is a lot less work.
But in PA specifically the legislature declined to allow pre-canvass before the election.
When done right we have have reasonable speed and security.
1. Your physical signature witnessed by a poll worker, and your identity and presence physically recorded in several different locations.
2. A physical paper ballot only accessible by poll workers.
3. A locally stored electronic ballot only accessible by poll workers.
4. Multiple physical receipts with your votes, distributed to many different physical locations only accessible to poll workers.
5. A trained poll worker available to help at the time and place that you vote.
6. An easy backup plan if something goes wrong.
Online voting is optimized for the happy path, but handling all the edge cases where something could go wrong is extremely difficult to implement and difficult for voters to understand. With online voting you need to ensure the security of the voter's physical device, operating system, web browser, each link in their internet connection, and all of those for the voting servers as well. After implementing processes to secure all of that, you need to communicate the security in a way that an average voter can understand it. You also need to think about what to do when a voter needs help, or their computer crashes mid-vote, or their power goes out, or someone sends them the wrong link, etc. etc. etc.
Current processes are a little more complicated up front, but processes for preventing and correcting errors are easy to implement and understand.
The manual processes are much better for transparency and verifiability. And we really badly need those qualities right now, when you have to be able to prove to the other side that the vote was legit, and be able to prove that every claim otherwise is false.
Insecure and hackable voting machines were already a problem more than a decade ago, and they're still a problem today.
With voting I think the consideration is a barrier for voting. In many states you do not need to prove it to vote. Some states allow a normal vote and some states make them provisional. Still, no concrete identification is required when voting in most states. The voter is trusted to be who they say they are under possible penalty. This only applies to in person voting. Almost all states allowing mail in voting do not require notarization.
With electronic voting you have a huge barrier in that not everyone has access to the means to vote electronically. You disenfranchise a pool of voters.
It is! Until you try to secure it. Then it isn't.
It's not just a matter of writing code with no bugs, though. As I mentioned this another comment, [1] voting is unusual as we must be confident in the correctness of the count, and confident that it's not possible to prove whether a particular person voted a particular way. There's also a trust issue: with a digital system, a single corrupt official will likely be able to do far more damage to the vote than with a paper-based system. Even if the system is somehow structured to resist this, public trust might still be less than in a paper-based system.
I can picture several ways to do a hybrid (mail + online) election like getting a code in the mail, voting online, then being able to ensure your ballot was counted correctly by using your code.
It seems to make a lot more sense than having states count for a week.
Voting has a short list of maybe four easily stated requirements. Online voting “solutions” tend to solve one or two, forget about the others, and try to compensate on user experience.
Beyond that, the system is clearly geared towards increasing participation and enfranchising as many people as possible (a good thing in a democratic system).
Voting is county by county, and it is run by human beings that make mistakes, but in the dozens of times I have voted the secrecy of my ballot has been entirely up to me. Party affiliation is not a secret, true, it is a public record. But the actual Please provide a lot more context than "how easy it can be" or please delete your post.
The ballot counting device has a locked compartment where the inserted ballots are kept. Only the inspector for the location has the key (although this may be handed to another worker when the inspector takes a break). This compartment has a numbered tamper seal placed on it, and this seal is checked throughout the day and its number is re-recorded each time.
Provisional ballots and mail-in ballots are similarly protected. They aren’t behind a locked compartment, but the boxes they go into are again sealed with tamper-evident seals that are—again—numbered and regularly checked.
Of course, no system is perfect and inspectors are undertrained (a few hours of training once every other year or so), overloaded at times, and human. As someone in security as my day job though, I’d say the measures in place to prevent tampering, fraud, and ballot disclosure are reasonably sound.
Source: I am an SF election inspector.
CO has universal mailings. You mail (or drop off) your ballot in a double envelope, and only the outer envelope carries identifying information. One workstation examines the outer envelope to track who voted, and a different workstation processes the anonymous ballots. It requires a little more trust on the part of the voter, but also encourages more participation.
I was struck when the article said they were asking party affiliation before voting.
>> The voter approaches their table, and gives their name and party affiliation. The party affiliation is used as a signal that something fishy might be going on if the ratio of R to D is very different from the votes recorded.
Wtf? You can vote in secret but you gotta tell us who you voted with?
Maybe it's because we generally don't expect our votes to be revealed, nor do we expect serious repercussions if they were.
If things change so that either/both of those things stop being true, we'd probably see a push for better anonymity.
As a sibling comment mentions, states and cities have a great deal of freedom in terms of the "how" of voting and some do it better than others.
Once the ballot is in the box, disassociated from the voter then there is no more secrecy concerns.
There are plenty of towns where "everyone knows everyone" and a system that requires trust on poll workers in this aspect is a bit alien to me. For example, one system I am familiar with the ballot itself is not special, the envelope is (it has signatures from the poll workers, which is also problematic because they can potentially surreptitiously mark the envelope in a special way to associate the vote to a specific person), which makes it unnecessary for poll workers to ever be in contact with the ballots themselves.
Overall, my qualms are minimal and am more concerned about the use of computers for the vote than anything else in the process.
Obviously that's harder to do with mail ballots, because we have to be able to discern that one voter submitted one ballot. (and my state also allows people to track their mail-in ballot)
Or do you mean you have to verify that the ballot is actually submitted after the name is crossed off?
The pattern is the same in every swing state except Arizona, and in Virginia as well. If you plot out Edison data that has vote count updates, in "normal" states (both Biden and Trump dominant), things are chaotic initially (when in-person votes are counted) and then they settle to a certain GOP/DEM ratio, with a very slow drift towards GOP, presumably because rural votes take longer to show up. In the swing states you observe the same initial chaos, and the same slight initial drift towards GOP, but then Biden starts to get very lucky indeed, and his luck improves as time goes on.
To be fair, this could just be artifact of how votes are counted, in which case I'd like to see what could lead to such a pattern _only_ in the swing states. Or this could be evidence of vote rigging by all means necessary. No matter which side you're on, this should be looked into.
1. Mail in ballots were heavily partisan. The president made a point to instruct Republican voters to vote in person, and not by mail. And many other correlated factors (eg. COVID and social distancing has also been heavily politicized, influencing whether a voter would vote in person vs mail in).
2. Mail in ballots were delayed. This happened both legally (https://www.npr.org/2020/10/14/922202497/in-swing-states-law...), as well as though strategic dismantling of USPS mail processing facilities.
And now this pre-meditated orchestration, set up by a Republican president and Republican State house, is being used as evidence of some grand conspiracy. Its not, and has been predictable for months now, with countless news articles about it.
Specifically, in PA where they were segregating late arriving ballots, only about 10,000 ballots arrived after 8pm on Election Day, and there’s no reason to believe those ballots weren’t delivered within the expected delivery timeframe and just mailed late.
The USPS wrote a letter months ago trying to urge states to be sure their mailing cutoff timelines corresponded with USPS’s physical delivery timelines (e.g. basically, don’t let someone request a mail in ballot within 4 days of the election) and there was a massive over-reaction. In the end there has been no incidence of ballots not being delivered on time that I’ve seen.
Their State courts also rules to extend the voting deadline for mail-in, which goes against their own laws and may end up going against the constitution.
PA has not been confirmed on some media sites; and been switched back to grey. It will likely make it to the Supreme Cort.
Please stop spreading misinformation. There is a lot of credible voter irregularities. Due process violations occurred in PA and NV (observers not allowed access) and in Detroit (observers were told to go home when 120k votes came in at 4am .. and then those votes changed to 12k).
There are a lot of questionable aspects to this election and they all need to be investigated. Please at least realize that investigation needs to happen. If there are no issues, investigations should not be a big deal. So far every state in question has been actively hindering transparency.
This could turn into one of the most disputed elections of our time and the media is trying to dismiss all the irregularities. This is incredibly dangerous, as we could potentially see riots that would make May look like a Canadian hockey game after party.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-pennsylvanias-vote-...
This is because many other states that were not swing states, "red" and "blue", simply aren't getting any attention. But the late counted mail votes in those states have followed the same pattern as PA. If you believe PA is somehow special in this phenomenon, you are wrong.
Finally, if you want to complain about your perception of a problem with late votes skewing things, the cause of that comes down to election laws in PA which prevent processing of such votes until election day, which was a law that PA sought to change so results would be known earlier, but they were blocked in this effort by GOP state legislature.
This had the exactly predicted result that Democrats voted by mail significantly more than Republicans, who were much more inclined to vote by person.
Many states report in-person voting very quickly, while mail in votes take more time to process. This, again, had the easily predicted outcome of increasingly the tally of votes for Democratic candidates by a significant margin over Republican mail votes.
A great example of this same phenomenon can be seen in states like Florida that are allowed to count such votes before election day. In those states, the predicted result of increased Democratic early/mail voting was fully born out by the results: Democrats lead the early available result, and as in-person votes on election day were tallied Republican votes significantly outpaced Democratic votes. Of course neither Republicans, or Democrats whose tallies suffered as more in-person results were processed, complained about this or alleged fraud, because again, it was the exactly predicted result
Another consideration is that, while polls weren't perfect, the overall result of the election is supported by the polls. Yes, in any individual state the polls may have been outside the margin of error, but as a whole, and in national polls, the results of the election follow the direction of the polls, and the national popular vote is generally within the margin of error on display in national polls. While still not perfect in this election cycle, pollsters did rethink their methods after 2016, taking steps like weighting education level in their models in accordance with the 2016 outcomes, so it is not surprising that, overall, the polls more closely mirrored the results of the 2020 election.
A final point with respect to the claim that Democrats are good at or routinely cheat in elections. The record of Democratic wins does not support this. If they were excellent at stealing elections, I would not expect them to have lost more than half of the presidential elections in the last 40 years. I would not expect them to occupy less than half of the state Governorships. I would not expect them to be in control of less than half of state legislatures. I would not expect them to lose very tight races in toss-up states. I would not expect election results in specific regions, counties, etc. to closely mirror party affiliation trends in voter registration.
I would expect massive conspiracies that would require thousands of people across the country to collaborate to be just about impossible to hide. I would expect more concrete evidence of voter fraud to appear than claims that typically disappear on close inspection. I would expect the bipartisan group of election officials, poll workers, etc. to include substantial numbers of people from opposing parties to have witnessed systematic irregularities instead of the rare vague suspicion.
In short, no available data has come to light to support any sort of widespread election fraud. Should any of the very small scale allegations being levelled by President Trump's campaign demonstrate concrete evidence, I fully support a rigorous investigation and legal proceeding to bring the incidents to light.
* As a security/integrity issue, the ballots themselves are much less scary than the pollbooks, which are what we use to match voters against the voting rolls.
* Everything's ultimately on paper; there are bar codes, which nobody loves, but they're auditable against the readable printed ballot.
* Most of the security is physical/human; for us, each polling station (a location can have several precincts and thus several stations, each a giant rolling metal box) is sealed using numbered plastic seals before the polls open and after they're closed, and everything is recorded redundantly and signed off on by the poll workers.
* A matching count at the close of polls is a big deal, a nightmare big deal; in Illinois, we can't just shrug off a missing ballot and say "nothing we can do about it"; in March, I had to stay 3 hours late while we resolved a similar issue (IIRC, a mis-recorded provisional). Most pollworkers in my experience are there for the money (I've never bothered cashing the check) and the threat that they won't get paid if they count doesn't match is extremely powerful.
* The local police are not allowed to monitor polling places, and the municipality of the polling place is usually confused about that; in Cook County, it's the County Sheriff's Department that has authority over polling places. Our cops were very friendly and responsive.
* The drama of every election is the the "string line" that defined the 100 foot "no electioneering" radius of the polling place; the entertainment you can count on each cycle is the candidate whose people religiously move their lawn signs inside the string line, and freak out when you remove them.
It's an interesting system that derives a lot of resiliency from extreme complexity and maximal human touch points --- Illinois elections will never do something with 1 person when the same thing could be done with 2 --- which is sort of the opposite of how we reason about security online. It's simultaneously terrifying and reassuring.
Likewise in regards to the police: we had DuPage sheriffs wander in occasionally to look around and chat - they were reasonably friendly with some random chitchat. I don't think they were looking for anything in particular, just trying to deter any mischief by being seen openly.
One thing that surprised me is how hard election judges worked: I started by 6:30 AM and only ended at 8:30 PM, with maybe a 15 min break for lunch. All the other time I was handing out ballots, doing paperwork, giving directions, etc. In DuPage election judges get $100 for the whole day - I would be in favor of doubling that plus some money for lunch + dinner.
I also came away from it thinking "Oh goodness it is amazing democracy survives, but kinda cool that it survives in an extremely participatory matter."
Edited: Would have been for the primary, not the general, so I was still in high school, and the youngest judge by 50 years or so for our polling place.
That's it, you just don't get paid? I'd expect it to involve a criminal investigation.
Paper ballots and a pencil/pen are still hugely more reliable and trustworthy, IMO.
In the UK, everything is done on paper - even if there was potential for fraud, scaling it across the whole nation would take years and huge amounts of money (and even more hush money)
They're doing the same with signature matching (your signature on your ballot has to match a different signature that could be many years older).
Paper is safe from people outside the system, but not from politicized courts that are able to ignore paper ballots for minor mistakes.
The process described in the article seems a little different than the ones we used in Texas (Dallas County). We have our registration verified and check in, and then are given a paper ballot. You put that into the voting machine, cast your ballot which is recorded electronically on the machine, then printed on the paper ballot and returned to you. You're told to inspect it for accuracy, then deposit it in a _separate_ tabulating machine, which scans it and displays what it recorded when reading your vote, tabulates your vote electronically, and stores the paper backup in a locked deposit box inside the machine. From my understanding, if anything goes wonky during this process and you notice it, you can have the ballot invalidated and receive another to cast. At the end of the day, the counts are printed and stored along with the memory cards on every machine, and those and the secure ballot boxes are all stored with tamper evident seals.
So you have the electronic count on the voting machine from the memory card, the printed count from the voting machine generated at the end of the day, the electronic count on the tabulating machine from its memory card, the printed count from the tabulating machine generated each day, as well as the paper ballots as a backup, which from my understanding are re-tabulated en-masse on larger and faster machines after the election to get a second count as part of the certification process. All data points have to match. None of the machines are connected to the internet, so you'd have to gain physical access to them or the memory cards, and anything done would have to match the counts on all the other associated machines and receipts, plus the paper ballot backups. The Secretary of State also generates a list of voters who cast ballots each day by county and voting location based on when you first check in to vote, so that's another publicly auditable list that would have to match that is not related to the voting machines themselves.
Paper ballots are definitely more simple and probably just as secure, if not more, if handled properly. However, having multiple points of redundancy is invaluable to help quickly identify issues and ensure everything matches over multiple steps of the process.
I've really not seen any issues inside my wheelhouse. I feel for the devs having to codify abberant voting procedures.
I hot fixed the VVPAT for my poll site's touchscreen. The cheap bent metal got warped, preventing correct operation. Imagine you had to change the thermal paper for a cash register made by lowest bid contractor designed by grifters who've never seen a cash register. These units were worse.
I attended a handful of the "logic and accuracy" tests. One time, both the printer and memory card reader failed, of the the unit randomly chosen for testing. So they swamped parts and cards until they got it to work. Deemed a success. In truth, the only thing proven was that one of their printers could make marks on paper, given enough fiddling.
I’ve voted in PA for 20 years and have never once been asked my party affiliation. This is all in Philadelphia, so maybe other counties are different? This seems sketchy. Even more so than the cop, who likely didn’t expect anyone to challenge him.
> The party affiliation is used as a signal that something fishy might be going on if the ratio of R to D is very different from the votes recorded.
Any comparison of total turnout v.s. historic turnout based upon political party could be done after the fact anyway.
Can I have affiliation for 'no party' ?
Or better yet, never answer the question so the answer is NULL ?
Assuming the person making these claims accurately relayed his observations, what he saw sounds just as likely to be workers setting up & testing the machines for proper functionality.
Of course, there's a chance that's not the case, and something else was going on. But lacking evidence to the contrary, this account seems explainable by something other than election fraud.
I’d much rather hear concrete allegations with evidence from someone who isn’t a lawyer for the losing party.
I'm not saying the person is lying, but they may be misinformed about the procedures applying across the entire state.
(I'm also not saying anything is wrong with how it was done anywhere in PA.)
However, this link describes a guilty plea of someone convicted of doing just that:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edpa/pr/us-attorney-william-m-m...
So it would be interesting to reconcile this. One possibility is that procedures vary across the state, as some other comments here might indicate. Another is that the system the author participated in isn't actually as immune to fraud as he thinks.
Some other possibilities might be that primary elections use a different process and/or undergo less scrutiny than general elections, or that procedures have changed since 2016.
As you said, it'd be an interesting exercise to go through exactly what DeMuro did and figure out whether what happened then would or would not work now.
Incidentally, it seems the author might have had to deal with a similar situation:
> The other event came when a discrepancy developed between the number of votes recorded by the machine and the number of voters tallied in the books: one vote was recorded in the books that was not recorded by the machines. We ultimately concluded that someone had just walked out of the polling place after they were handed their ballot, never casting their vote on the machine. Other possibilities which we ultimately ruled out were election board error, or that the voter voted in the wrong division after receiving their ballot. The redundant records — the index card, the registration book, the list of voters — helped to narrow down the possible causes. In the end, there was nothing we could do about it.
So there's an argument to be made that what DeMuro did (ringing up votes on the machine) could have been caught.
Prior studies have only shown minor instances of voter fraud, I think something like 1000 documented instances of voter fraud amount 10s of millions of votes cast. With all the available information I have, I think it would be very difficult to fradulently product ballots on the order of 10s of thousands to actually swing an election.
Secondly, I think if we did have a widespread voter fraud problem I think it would also call into question past elections as well.
https://git.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/drewdevault.com/tree/master/cont...
Two: No one is really questioning the machines not "working right". It is clear that there is no validation with the mail in ballots. MIB's are some of the most rejected ballots there are, yet no one seems to have any stats on this, or the stats provided are very low. Then you factor in tons of twitter and facebook posts of women saying that they were sent two ballots, one for their maiden name and one for their current name, at both their current address and their old addresses. Never mind that it is state law in most of these places that a ballot has to be "solicited" and cannot just be mailed en mass via mail. Put another way, you can't just mail 5 million ballots out to just 1 million physical addresses. I would not be surprised if during a recount, 50% of these MIBs are rejected.
Three: elections are quite predictable. There are 100's of counties that for the last 40 years have always predicted the outcome. If this county is blue, then blue is our president, etc. This seems to still be the case this time around, except for the states in question.
People's Pundit Daily https://youtu.be/Em0R9DRSbIE for the most part has been a really good source of information on behind the scene numbers and what "normal" elections typically should look like. I'd recommend it.
In Georgia, the ballots are printed from a terminal that the voter uses and then scanned, leaving both an electronic count and a paper trail (the ballot itself is ejected from the bottom of the scanner into a sealed ballot box).
However, our scanners jammed 40 minutes into the day; after a couple hours, a technician managed to come to our precinct and opened the ballot box and revealed that a lackluster design in the ballot box caused the ballots coming out of the scanner to sometimes curl up and jam. Without any realistic solution, we just had to open the ballot box every time it jammed (supervised every time to ensure no monkey business) and push any stuck ballots out of the way of the scanner so that more could be scanned. Amusingly we had good success regularly giving the machine a good shove to dislodge any stuck ballots.
We also had problems printing receipts---in our case, we only need to print 3 from each scanner, but we ran out of scanner receipt paper. Since another precinct called us during the day looking for extra receipt paper... it wasn't available. But, we dodged a bullet, since there was just enough paper to print 2 of the 3 receipts. (1 gets posted on the door of the polling place; 2 go to the county. We wrote an apology on the receipt and only sent 1 to the county. I verified on the Secretary of State website that the votes tabulated for our precinct matched what our receipts printed. Cool to be able to double-check like that!)
I spent a while thinking about what a pollworker would need to do to illegally cast ballots. It would be a tall order indeed and would require cooperation and secrecy from everyone there, since the only way to cast a ballot is to scan it, and everyone can see the scanners at all times. I can't see it realistically happening in any precinct.
That said, it's sad to see we're no better than any other forum that just turns into political bullshit arguments sooner or later.
In Canada we just use paper ballots, it works great. The whole count is usually done the night of the election. I don't see the appeal of complicated voting machines in the US.
I am very surprised that police officers transport the ballots. When I was a poll judge, we transported everything ourselves, in pairs. Sheriffs did do traffic control and such at central count, like at a sporting event.
Is this a joke? An electoral system in which votes are not secret is anything but democratic.
If that happens to be true, it would put every single election on US soil into question. Pretty much undermines democracy altogether.
1. all the dead people who voted
2. all the ballot harvesting and curing which can be heavily manipulated
