It isn't that difficult to discover when the totals are tallied-- any of over votes (total votes for any one office greater than the total number of people who votes), huge result variances from the precinct's history and the like point to possible corruption.
I'm an election judge for our precinct. The head of our election bureau makes it very clear that we will be held accountable if these type of things happen in our precinct.
Many precincts (including ours) have a difficult time fully staffing for elections, believe it or not. Conservatives would be wise to volunteer for these duties as a good, balanced election board is the first line of defense.
Yes, in 2012 in Ohio there were several counties in which the total number of votes cast for president exceeded the numbers of registered voters there. And that in a year where votes cast nationally were reported to be DOWN from the previous presidential election, something that occurred previously only in 1864 (with the Confederate states not voting) and 1944 (with WWII raging and something like 15 million in military service).
But even more indicative of cheating than that, there were whole precincts in Cleveland and in Philadelphia where Romney was reported to have ZERO votes! ZERO! That is statistically as likely as snow on July 4 in Honolulu; even in predominantly black precincts, there are going to be a few anti-Obama voters. Regardless of what you may think of Romney as a presidential candidate, it's obvious that he was robbed, and his voters in those precincts were in effect disenfranchised. (Yet not a word that I know of out of the Romney campaign on that.)
Fraudulent VOTE COUNTING would come to a near immediate halt if counties refused to add chronically corrupt precincts and states refused to add chronically corrupt counties to their respective totals.
That's an interesting proposal, but it has the downside of disenfranchising many honest and legitimate voters in those precincts. Perhaps better than that is to have a bipartisan state election commission handle the counting and reporting of votes in the "chronically corrupt" counties and precincts, but even then, how would you define "chronically corrupt"? I suppose it's like pornography: you know it when you see it.