3 ms·

Or sloppy/lazy counting because they already know the predetermined outcome.

• Piskvorrr 10y ago
  Improbable. Sharing a pre-determined result with Joe Random Votecounters * number of voting stations = near certainty of someone leaking that, and a field day for the media. So, while theoretically possible, realistically summed up by "three men can hold a secret, if one of them is dead." (And specifically here, if I were a conspirator going for a predetermined result, I would want a somewhat close result, yes - but not an almost-tie as seen here. Something like 55:45 or somesuch, not a "every single vote matters" scenario, where a few thousand votes could swing the outcome)
  • rcthompson 10y ago
    I think it would be more of an "open secret" pattern: e.g. no one explicitly orders people to make sure the ruling party always wins, but everyone knows someone who knows someone who was punished for reporting the actual count instead of a rigged count.
    • Piskvorrr 10y ago
      What you are describing is not an "open secret," that's a "conspiracy theory."
• darkerside 10y ago
  This is likely true and does not indicate fraud. The majority of precincts overwhelmingly favor one candidate, as do many states.
  • jessaustin 10y ago
    Elections are not counted by precinct, however. E.g., in a presidential election, many states are won or lost as a block. If one candidate only gets ten votes in this precinct, so we just throw them out, and she loses by five votes over the whole state, that certainly is fraud.