[wfunction]

> that's a risk you have to take

Well, obviously. But the risk can be high or low, right? You could either let any random voter you don't know walk in and become a volunteer after filling out a form, or you could let maybe ~50 people that the party's head/nominee personally trust pick a set of volunteers nationally based on e.g. personal knowledge or some concrete evidences of their past contributions and allegiance to the party. Or something else; there are lots of possibilities here. So I'm asking what the criteria are so I can understand how likely it is for something to go wrong here... I obviously understand nothing 100% bulletproof, so there's no need to point that out.

[CoryG89]

Maybe it's just me, but I think I would be more comfortable pulling 50 random people off the street to count votes than I would be with 50 volunteers appointed by the candidates, who have a much bigger incentive to violate the integrity of the vote (if needed).

[oxide]

let's take this a step further: two republicans, one falsely registered as a democrat, have been paired off at the polling station in Araphaoe County. the lie was bought, the fraud complete. now what?

[jacalata]

The "real" Republican sees his "Democrat" counterpart attempt to tamper with the machine and saying "trust me, I'm doing it for the Republicans". They yell for assistance.

[oxide]

that's about what I figured. I can't see a clear benefit or advantage to having one rogue false registrant make a single pair weighted towards one party or the other.

[wfunction]

> let's take this a step further: two republicans, one falsely registered as a democrat, now have been paired off at the polling station in Araphaoe County. the lie was bought, the fraud complete. now what?

I don't know, but you seem to be completely ignoring my point. I'm trying to figure out the probability of this happening. I'm NOT trying to figure out what to do after this happens.