> When a ballot is received, the name of the person is entered into a poll book. Therefore, when you see a poll book and a pile of ballots, you can check that the counts are the same. Entering data into the poll book is therefore one of the most critical parts of an election, and is the part that is critically observed by election watchers. You cannot merely smuggle in pre-filled ballots, as the ballot counts would not match the poll book counts.

"When a ballot is received, the name of the person is entered into a poll book."

I'm not familiar with the exact mechanics of this. From where does the ballot originate, where/how is the ballot "received", and what is the procedure for entering it into the poll book?

And, is this process identical (in design, and confirmed practice) for all states and polling stations?

> You would also need to explain how poll books were falsely updated.

Technically, I do not. Fraud (some fraud, not necessarily massive fraud) occurred in physical reality, or it did not. My personal opinion on the matter, or lack of an explanation, is orthogonal to events that occurred in physical reality. The burden of evidence is on the one who asserts the claim. And, that which occurred in physical; reality, is that which occurred, regardless of whether we have "proof" of it. Reality itself, and human measurements/opinions/"facts" about reality, are distinct entities. Related, but different.

> If someone smuggled in fake ballots, AND somehow managed to falsify the poll book, it would be possible to use the poll book to ASK people if they voted.

It may be "possible", but is it practical? How difficult would it be? Is the current approach perfectly optimal, or could it be improved?

> You could then find people who say they did not vote, but there is a record of them voting.

We "could", but would we? Did we spot check any ballots? How much evidence do we have that demonstrates or suggests that there precisely zero anomalies anywhere in the system (and how hard did we look)?

> It is therefore trivially falsifiable with current election procedures.

Only if your premises are flawless.

> Or is there something you think I'm missing?

The above questions. Also, it's probably worth pointing out that neither of us (or a combination of us) are guaranteed to have 100% comprehensive knowledge of all possible points of failure.

> Here is the critical moment where the woman in Michigan argues with a Republican, claiming without evidence that the poll book is off, when it was literally trivial to check it. (Look for the tweet with "Holy smokes the sequel is even better!")

Do any comprehensive conclusions logically (and inevitably) follow from this event, or might the significance of it be more related to the notion of rhetorical/heuristic influence?

I have a bit of an issue with the manner in which we approach this whole situation from an educational perspective. As a society, we've surely spent many tens or hundreds of person-hours participating in meme wars about this topic. If this sort of non-productive (and socially destructive) behavior was going on anywhere we worked, I would expect that someone was assemble a FAQ or Wiki of some sort that laid out the details - fully comprehensive, and fully accurate (across all states), in a format that is approachable by all employees.

Does such a resource exist for the election process?