Everyone, I have researched Voter Fraud (Should be Voting Fraud, and Election Fraud, it is RARELY the voter!)...

When I discovered duplicate voters in FL and (MI, OH, NY, etc) [I Matched First, Last, DOB, and Middle Initial]... Common names are a problem, but the "remedy" was we notified both states,
gave them the corresponding details, and usually ANY STATE OTHER THAN FL fixed the problem. In RED Counties in FL, they were usually fixed. The deep blue counties, they were ignored and we had to file suit!

Anyways, I discovered that 30% of the Duplicate Voters were NOT Democrats. I was shocked. I consider Republicans to be Rule Followers. They clearly know better.
And then James O'Keefe came to the rescue. His videos explained that the SAME Process I used, the Professionals use. And they CONTACT that voter, and ask if they will vote in FL or NY, or they call
and see if they are just voting in NY (where the ID requirement is basically non-existent). And they send a voter in that persons place. That is what the undercover taped interviewee said! WOW.

Furthermore. When you stuff Ballots, you TYPICALLY SCAN the ballots first, when nobody is around. Then you randomly select people, and mark them as having showed up to vote.
Because BOTH counts must match at the end of the night. (If they scan too many people in, they will spoil a few ballots, no big deal).

But dead people are ON THE LIST of voters! So, the clerk up front, who is told to sign 100 people in. Flips through the screen, and picks people randomly. And if 2% of your voter rolls are actually dead people.
Then every 100 random picks... You might get 2 dead people voting.

THIS IS CRITCAL. Because the number of dead people voting is a SIGN of the ballot stuffing. THE DEPTH of which you must extrapolate from the percentage of dead people (and factor in that as voters might have early voted, you cannot select them, so that percentage is a moving target over time). Regardless.

Lets assume 2% dead people and 5% dead people (The latter number is really high, it should not be that high).

If MI had 10,000 Provably DEAD people voting. Then using 2%, you would multiply by 50... And that tells you the SCALE of 500,000 Ballots MAY HAVE BEEN STUFFED.
Now if the number is 5%, then only 200,000 Ballots were probably stuffed. [And since the number can change as you are reaching 90+% voter turnout, and the odds of picking a dead person
from the remaining list skyrocket]...

So, assume you have 200k - 500k ballots that were "Stuffed" to catch up and surpass Trumps lead... NOW you have an idea of BREADTH. So, what do you look for?
1) How about a HUGE NUMBER OF Ballots where the only person they voted for was Joe Biden? (Was this 100k or 200k) Wow...
2) Computer Terminal Logs for marking people as having voted!
This is critical. Because normally, a person can check in X people every minute. Lets say 1. BTW, the terminals should track these numbers. Because you have to read an ID, scan something, look at the screen, etc.
Regardless, it is some number X/minute. Normal workload. And averaged across workstations. Then Tracked to specific people (who might be really fast).
But if you are JUST FLIPPING screens, because you were TASKED with signing in 1,000 people. And all you are doing is flipping through screens, and picking people randomly. Then you are going to be MUCH MUCH faster at this task. And that leaves clues as well. Especially if you are rushing, because you are doing a LOT... So you see a number much faster than X per minute. And you see 2 other things:
A) You see that the approach to selecting someone is different (no search feature used, just paging features)
B) People on the same page, more likely to be selected.

All of this can be reviewed, and should be available. The ORDER in which people were selected would tell you if they were on the same screen or on a nearby screen.

==

In the end, CHEATING violates the normal workflow, and it leaves clues. Typically timing and veracity (Dead people voting is a veracity problem), (Signing people in on the same page too often, or too many people signed in too quickly for a period of time is a TIMING problem).

Will we have enough to audit these things? Probably not before the election results are due in December.

Should Our Voting systems be designed to HIGHLIGHT and PREVENT this kind of stuff? ABSOLUTELY.
Should these machines be monitored by multiple Cameras while in use? [I envision a day when Poll Monitors sit in front of a Computer screen, and can focus on different angles, and literally see what the operator sees].
This way we can train AI programs to look for fraud.

In the end, EVERY ELECTION should go through an audit. Random Precincts should be 100% audited (and auditable). Every voter who voted MUST be contacted. The veracity of their vote and the timing should be verified. And if a X precincts FAIL such an audit, then EVERY precinct in a county is audited. If 2 counties fail their audit, then EVERY county gets audited.

And NOBODY who resides over failing audits should be allowed NEAR public Office or future elections.

That will be my final note. I have seen groups who have watched the same polls together for 16 years. This is NOT GOOD. These people need to be rotated. At the very least, the people signing people in, should have NO AFFILIATION with the rest of the people. It takes both ends to stuff ballots effectively. Oh, and they should be trained to work WITH poll monitors, not against them!

I hope this sheds light on why something as small as only 50 Dead voters who have voted in 1 state is so important. If they have less than 1% dead people on their voting rolls, and the state was won by a small margin... We could have a problem. Even more of a problem if there is concentration of the dead in specific KEY precincts that had other "questionable" numbers... (Lets say, WAYNE COUNTY, MI for example. LOL)