The changing of procedure is the biggest issue in my mind. However, the chain of custody is another one that I think gets glossed over. Would even Mr/Ms Prove it in Court be ok with a case against them where chain of custody of evidence was not handled properly?
In his mind, failure to prove you did it right is not proof you did it wrong.
In reality, if there's a problem with the final tally, and you can't prove you followed procedure, you're automatically blamed for the problem. That's how the system is supposed to work -- to make sure everyone is ACCOUNTABLE and MOTIVATED to follow the rules. The process is important. Without it, we can't ever know that the outcome can be trusted.
I worked at an Ice Cream and Dairy retail store. We used an electronic cash register. Every sale was recorded, including cash tendered and change given. At any time, you could run a tally report to see the totals.
At end of night, we ran the totals, cleared the register (reset tallies), and counted out the cash. The final tape readout and cash had to match to the penny. Any significant difference had to be explained in writing if possible. Too many mismatches might result in losing your position as shift manager.
One Saturday, when we were slammed with a million customers, we had employees making mistakes. One involved ringing up the order, but then hitting the "00"" key when they meant to use the "0" key when entering amount tendered. They did that more than once, which created a $30 overage on the tape. Instead of explaining a $30 overage that night, the manager put a piece of paper next to the register with the overage amount at the top. As people sold ice cream or milk, the transaction was not entered into the register. Instead, it was subtracted from the $30 overage and handled "off the books", taking cash and making change "manually". Once the register had made up the $30 overage, we started using the register again.
I thought to myself, if this is how the manger does things just to avoid a mismatch at the end of the night (making herself look good to management), it makes no sense. Then it hit me -- if she routinely does this WHEN SHE STEALS $20 here, $40 there, then she's able to cover up the cash shortage by not using the register every time she makes a sale.
UPDATE: That manager and 2 other employees were fired the next year for stealing cash and product from the store.
This story demonstrates that the shortages happened, even if they could not be caught or explained. The same people had access to the production records, too, so they could also change stock numbers to cover up missing product, too. The process was weak, and therefore it was susceptible to being manipulated.
in these states, the same thing exists. if the laws and rules are allowed to be manipulated or ignored, AND there are unexplained outcomes in the election results, it's logical to include FRAUD, TAMPERING and INCOMPETENCE in the list of POSSIBLE explanations.
If you can't rule fraud out, then you have to consider fraud as a potential reality. Otherwise, you are eliminating a potential cause WITHOUT EVIDENCE.