[pwg]

Ultimately, my point boils down to: "given the possible issues, and multiple avenues of potential detection, any coordinated attempt of sufficient size is likely to be detected".

Which is what is likely the reason why not much seems to be happening, too many angles to "get caught" and so few groups attempt a coordinated attempt.

This was always one of the valid arguments against computerized voting machines and in favor of paper ballots. The paper ballots require "feet on the ground" attacks with high risks of detection. The "hack the machines" attack requires no large coordinated "feet on the ground" groups, and given some of the machines were reported to be internet connected, could be accomplished from a remote (and therefore safe) location.

PS - the number of "likelys" is because I have no sources for anything (beyond the 55% turnout figure) so it is all "guesstimates".