This reminded me of a hypothetical situation I thought of.
There's a town of 1,000 people. They have an election. One person wins by 100 votes. It is later found and proven that 99 of the votes for the winner were fraudulent. Who should win then? Who should be elected?
Clearly a lot of fraud went one way. If we look at it probabilistically, then the other candidate (the one who didn't benefit from fraud) should win, because most likely there were other votes that were also fraudulent. And yet, by electing the other candidate, you are ignoring a couple votes that were never proven to be fraudulent, which begs the question: exactly whose votes were thrown away and what is the justification for throwing them away?
There's a town of 1,000 people. They have an election. One person wins by 100 votes. It is later found and proven that 99 of the votes for the winner were fraudulent. Who should win then? Who should be elected?
Clearly a lot of fraud went one way. If we look at it probabilistically, then the other candidate (the one who didn't benefit from fraud) should win, because most likely there were other votes that were also fraudulent. And yet, by electing the other candidate, you are ignoring a couple votes that were never proven to be fraudulent, which begs the question: exactly whose votes were thrown away and what is the justification for throwing them away?