I know we are supposed to keep politics off of the site so let's look at this scenario from an information security point of view and the parallels to cyber security.
So in information security when we see abnormalities it causes us to be suspicious. When we see numerous instances of any of these things it really rises above the normal expected behavior and any good cyber security professional would become suspicious and support a full investigation. If you were asked to perform a security assessment of a company and you saw all of these things below, what would be your assessment?
If we see a spike in activity that rises above the norms, we suspect wrongdoing. So normal would be, let's say a turnout of 50-60%, but in certain areas it is 90-110%. Yes, some areas above 100%. Nothing suspicious there. There might be a valid reason, like same day registration, but why only in certain areas? Wouldn't we expect this behavior to be normalized? If these spike only occurred in certain areas where one group had control wouldn't that make it more suspicious? Fox guarding the henhouse paradigm?
If we see people minimizing down their computer screens when security walks in, we suspect wrongdoing. Why would you be nervous when security walks into the room? Or why would you prevent someone from watching your activities?
If we see people closing doors and hiding their activities, we suspect wrongdoing. Again, what could you be hiding?
If we see a group of employees going out of their legal authority to help one group, but not another group, we would be suspicious and suspect wrongdoing.
If we see people trying very hard to make it harder for monitors/auditors to perform their job, we suspect wrongdoing. Why would you purposely prejudice the work of the auditors or monitors? What could you be hiding?
When you do not require 100% user identification and it is very easy for people to pretend to be other people and succeed at impersonating that user, you would be suspicious and suspect wrongdoing.
If we see a process that is easily manipulated and is hard to be verified afterwards, we suspect potential for wrongdoing. No upfront verification of people being sent ballots, multiple ballots received at the same address, dead people receiving ballots, or worse than that, dead people REQUESTING ballots?
If we see machines that have been rejected by one entity for insecure cyber security configuration THREE times, but then are used by others, we suspect the potential for wrongdoing.
If we know that a process can be manipulated so that verification of fraud can be almost impossible to detect, after a certain event takes place like separating the mailing envelope with the postmark on it, signature required for verification, etc., AND you have that event happening while the auditors/monitors are being excluded, you would become suspicious and suspect wrongdoing is going on. Oh, AND once the unverified for legality votes are mixed in with the "legal" votes it becomes almost impossible to desegregate them later, you understand why an insider threat might want to delay/obstruct monitoring/auditing for a certain amount of time.
When you have a process that allows for anyone to go around and gather votes and potentially change them before submitting them in certain areas, you have a process that is ripe for fraud and abuse. You would have a right to be suspicious.
When you have auditors/monitors being told to go home as no more counting would be happening that night, and after they leave, counting resumes, you would be suspicious and suspect wrongdoing.
Then when you have a Public Relations campaign using absolute words like "Widespread" in order to minimize the suspicious behavior and try to say that no improper behavior is happening because it is not widespread; you become suspicious and suspect wrongdoing.
If these events were happening during a cybersecurity assessment you would write a very bad report on the company involved, wouldn't you? You would write up failures in policy, in oversight, in auditing, and management. You would start investigations, possibly criminal in nature, on employees. You would recommend such policy changes as address verification before sending out ballots, death notice updates to voter roles, voter removal for address changes, preventing ballot harvesting, and require 100% identification verification. You would suggest auditing and monitoring changes be made so that auditors/monitors could not be excluded from their oversight responsibilities. You would require that no counting be done without monitors present. You would not allow mysterious shipments of ballots to arrive during the night. You would have secure methods for transporting the ballots and not just have them showing up in boxes, bags, etc. You would even suggest the termination of several of the officials involved for impartial treatment. You would recommend that the company come up with national standards that affected all of their corporate locations to eliminate corruption in a few places, even if the corruption was not "widespread".
It amazes me to see how people can change their view on legality or morality to fit their narrative when they want to win. It gives credence to the adage "Power has the ability to corrupt." It is also amazing to see how certain people in high positions can get away with what would put you and I in jail.
I remember my first encounter with voting fraud was in high school. They had passed out ballots to vote for homecoming King and Queen. A few of the popular kids went around and collected the ballots. On the way to class I saw them in a side hallway erasing votes and checking who they wanted to be King and Queen. And it turned out just how they wanted.
