>You must be talking about those 31 cases of verified voter fraud out of that ONE BILLION votes cast. 31 parts per billion doesn't seem like a very serious problem to me.
>
>The key part of that phrase is VERIFIED. So, do you believe that if the voter fraud is unverified then it does not exist? Or are you saying that it is not fraud as long as you don't get caught?

A key test of any procedure is determining whether the outcome matches reasonable expectations.
So, if Mississipi elects a Democratic governoor, or Trenton elects a Republican mayor, someone better start checking things out.
However, that hasn't been happening, at least in presidential elections.
Nate Silver compiles polls and extracts composite consensus views based on the polls.
Nate's polls not only predicted the outcome of every single state in the past two elections.. he predicted all but a couple margins within a couple of points.

So.. unless people are cheating every possible pollster, the outcomes of the elections have been consistent with expectations.
That doesn't prove there is no fraud, but it does shift the burden of proof to someone who thinks that we should be adding costs and inconvience to a process that is acting as reasonable people would expect.

So, Nate's polls are giving Trump a 13% chance on the election day.
If Trump wins we better start looking at the system with a microscope.