>the distributed nature of American election >Their results come from the county level, of which there are over three thousand in the US, many of which are hea

>the distributed nature of American election >Their results come from the county level, of which there are over three thousand in the US, many of which are heavily Republican, and each of which is responsible for its own election setup, count, and verification. >You'd have to convince tens if not hundreds of thousands of election officials and volunteers to participate and cover it up. Tell that to Al Gore. Our elections are so "distributed" that every presidential election in the past 50yr or so has comes down to a number of counties you can count on two hands in a number of states you can count on one hand. The election may be distributed but the results in the overwhelming majority of states is a foregone conclusion. I don't see how anyone can call our (presidential) elections distributed with a straight face. Take Georgia, the example you picked. As usual the rural areas went red, the suburbs went a red or blue shade of purple and the city went blue. At the end of the day the question was whether there was enough blue in the city to exceed the red everywhere else. And this is why there's always a big argument over whether or not a fraction of a percent of inner city voters at the margin are being disfranchised by this or that policy. Basically every state goes down in this manner, albeit that in most of them the proportion between red voters and blue voters is different enough you can be reasonably sure of the results in advance. So the presidential election always comes down to a handful of city counties that will or won't flip their states red/blue based on turnout. (See also, why using gerrymandering to carve up cities to minimize or maximize their representation is such a big problem). Our elections are "distributed" in name only.