[damien c]

The problem is, people on either side will claim a "debunk" is legit or not and you will not make either side happy whilst they are in use, because if the results go one way, one side will say they are wrong and if they go the other way, the other side will say they were wrong.

The following is just a hypothetical of what might be claimed by someone wanting to support a "fraudulent vote" argument.

"The software developer for the voting systems used is Canadian, they could be bought by the Democrats to ensure they Democrats get elected, in order to stop the whole "canada will become an american state" thing that Trump is pushing."

"The software developer for the voting systems used is Canadian, they could be bought by the Republicans to ensure they Republicans get elected, in order to force the whole "canada will become an american state" thing that Trump is pushing."


See how easy it is to come up with a stupid comment about the system, regardless of which side the person sits and because as far as I am aware the software is not publicly viewable meaning you cannot see what it counts as a vote for one person over another, you cannot 100% claim it's not at risk of being "rigged" however stupid it might seem.


As for the poll watchers, frankly there was a lot of garbage going around about it all, so it may have been debunked, but the fact that people were stopped whilst the count carried on, is a problem, they should have stopped the count whilst the watcher was checked, once confirmed the count resumes with the watcher in place.



I mean here in the UK, we quite simply should have a rep from each party at each counting station, each counter should have a person looking over their shoulder to ensure they are counting correctly and then there should be cameras recording the whole thing.

It's not difficult to stop fraud, but parties are more interested in trying to make sure they can use the vote count as political ammo against the opposition party.