Desertdog said:When things like this go without investigation, why worry about a larger than normal under-vote, unless you are the loser
That's the point. There is this concept called "truth". The person who is declared the winner may not (in truth) be the person that got the most votes. I see almost all politicians as equally harmful to my way of life. I'd rather know with 100% certainty that the person in office is the person the voters chose, and not the person who hired the most efficient "election fixers".
FWIW, after the 2000 election, there were ballot boxes found in various precincts in South Florida that had never been opened; had never been counted. Wouldn't you want to know that your man had been elected honestly? Or is it a moot point, as long as your man wins?