Every judge of elections keeps a running count of the number of voters. Every clerk does as well. That count is compared with the machine count, and the submitted machine count is compared with the registered count. "Making" votes is very difficult in our system. Changing votes is another matter; in an optical reader it is impossible in practice for any election official to know that the recorded vote is the same as the vote punched in by the machine. Nevertheless, it is virtually impossible to create or destroy votes in the total counts. If there are a thousand votes, 500 'Pubs could be changed to 500 Dems, but 500 'Pub votes could not be deleted. Nor could 500 Dems be added.
In a dishonest precinct, it's possible (and likely) that votes were added but they would have to be added throughout the day, and all election officials would have to be in on the deception. That happens all the time in Philadelphia. But it is not "that many" votes. [Hold the flames: I'm not saying any election fraud is acceptable. I'm just telling those of you who don't know that even in a very dishonest precinct, adding a lot of votes is pretty difficult as a practical matter.] But anyway, this DOES address your issue, because, notice: our problem is not that too many Dems voted. Their numbers were WAY DOWN. WAY FURTHER DOWN THAN OURS. The problem is that too few Republicans voted. But a crooked election Judge in Philly has NO WAY TO REMOVE Republican -- or anybody else's -- votes.
Second, in States like OH and PA -- which are part of the battleground -- Republicans have poll watchers in every precinct (so do Dems.) They record the voters who have voted. Runners come to the polling places at routine intervals copy the lists, and GOTV phone banks make contact with the people in a precinct who have not voted. So there is in fact an additional check in the system; foiling that system would require Republicans to be involved in deep-sixing Republican hand tallies of who voted. That is NOT realistic.
Romney's people did not contest the vote counts. Therefore we have to assume that in places where the GOTV effort was active, they saw throughout the day that they were not reaching their registered voters and consequently they had no choice but to accept the outcome. If, on the basis of the poll watchers' lists the people who voted was wildly different from the expected polling result, we would be in a Florida situation as of about 10 PM on 11/6. We aren't.
Fred, the exchange of votes will accomplish the task, and invalidate the election. Election manipulation is executed by skillful people. Look at how easily Google hid the Supreme Court decisions edited by Center for American Progress CIO, Eric Malamud. When the left, and only the left, because the SEIU manages the voting network, they can be expected to maintain the count. This might have been a close election. We will never know, because that was the story promoted by the state-run media. Were I working for them that would be the message I would propogate to prepare the public for a reportedly close election.
Machines create an entirely unjustified feeling of confidence. They hide the intent of voters. Smart fraud perpetrators will maintain the count, as they failed to do in some districts of Ohio and Colorado, where there were ten percent more votes than registered voters. The details can only be guesses. What is not a guess, what we know with certainty, is that our voting system provides no audit trail in most cases, and, since what paper ballots there are have been under the control of the SEIU, no means of ascertaining the intent of our citizens.
I have been a poll watcher, which simply confirmed the helplessness of concerned citizens. The numbers of voters using absentee ballots ranges from about twenty to almost one hundred percent. Absentee ballots are counted by SEIU employees in most states. Obama was once a trainer for Project Vote, a Soros funded political organization. Does anyone doubt that the SEIU will report whatever will insure their incomes and pensions?
Republicans have been unwilling to aggressively address the security of our election system for reasons we can only guess at. Their laizzez faire approach to the kernel of the representation of the the wishes of citizens has all but given away our freedom to govern ourselves. We will pay and pay for ten thousand Solyndras, accept Sharia law, accept carbon taxes which the world's largest manufacturer, China, has declared complete nonsense, and has refused to accede to for China's airlines, promising to end air travel to and from Europe by China's airlines. Europe backed down, as they had to. But we will pay, because now we have no longer have the freedom to choose.
Without paper ballots and local counting, removing the count from unionized government thugs (and I have personally seen them threaten poll watchers who tried to stand behind them in absentee counting rooms), our path to Ortega-like socialism will accelerate. As companies fail at greater rates, and savings are destroyed by devaluation, desperation will set in. This is the brilliant plan by Cloward and Piven for the destruction of capitalism. What Cloward and Piven didn't understand, never having run a company or worked in the private sector, is that other nations saw what worked, and are replacing us, first with free markets, and eventually, with the social freedoms aroung which we were founded.
Electoral correction cannot happen for at least two years. With the extent of our corruption, that is a very long shot. Ayn Rand was remarkably prescient, but she saw the Bolschevic revolution destroy Russia. Conservatives will need to prevail in both houses, and have sufficient votes to overcome a certain veto, to impose a clean electoral system. The reality was shown when Republican gained state governorships. A measure of state sovereignty may be the only way to overcome the amazing corruption in our federal government.