Also, there is another scenario. Let's say the rules allow to change the vote later. A voter votes for candidate X and gets a link that allows to verify that the vote is recorded. But several hours later the server software re-votes for candidate Y. If the voter bothers to check results after election, they will find that their vote was altered. But the voter has no proof that they didn't vote for candidate Y, and election officials have server logs that prove that the voter has voted two times. So probably the voter is just lying because they don't want to accept the fact that candidate Y is supported by 99% of population.
And one more scenario: before closing the elections, officials can make a list of people who didn't vote and vote for them. If they didn't vote they probably don't care about elections and won't find out that someone voted for them.
ยป And one more scenario: before closing the elections, officials can make a list of people who didn't vote and vote for them. If they didn't vote they probably don't care about elections and won't find out that someone voted for them.
This could already happen today. This is why all major candidates, even in these united states, send their own observers and not simply trust election officials to do their job.
I think you mean "does", or at least, "did". I have spoken with more than one political operative who has voted for the dead, for instance. Probably much more common in NYC (and other places suffering from machine politics, like Chicago).
And one more scenario: before closing the elections, officials can make a list of people who didn't vote and vote for them. If they didn't vote they probably don't care about elections and won't find out that someone voted for them.