What we do have is proof that the published numbers about the voting cannot be accurate, which means that we can't tell from them who would have won if there had been no tinkering. Somewhere in there, someone quoted Babbage, about people who asked him whether his machine would give accurate answers if fed the wrong numbers.

Also, McCarty's public statements are both vague and unconvincing: "'We followed the rules.' 'OK, Dave, what are those rules?' 'I already said, the rules that applied here.' 'Be specific, please.' 'The rules that applied to the Hugos.'" Except the rules do not allow admins to remove ballots that they know or suspect were part of a slate.

That's separate from the Tammany Hall (political machine) idea that "I don't care who does the voting, as long as I do the nominating."