Reply #38: Perfectly True

[On the Road]

At this point, the reports are not proof of malicious intent but a pattern which suggests it. Given the number of individual complaints of vote switching, it would seem to warrant an investigation. That's the only way to move beyond supposition.

On the other hand, a machine set to give all undervotes to a default candidate is more damning. There should be never be a default candidate, and it's difficult to see why the software would even allow one to be assigned.

On your requests for proof:

I do agree that sweeping accusations undermine the credibility of many election fraud activists. There is plenty of evidence of irregularities, but they often get buried under piles of bad argument and misinterpreted data.

I understand your looking at the reports from a development perspective, thinking how this could have come about innocently. In any individual case, it's true -- it could be any of the things you mentioned and more.

However, in a case of suspected fraud, it's necessary to compare that interpretation with a less innocent interpretation and decide which is more likely. It's difficult, because the reports are neither random or objective. That's why there's a lower threshold of evidence needed to start an investigation than to prove an allegation.

Personally, I think that standard has been met, and investigations should be made on several fronts.