How to prevent Diaspora Electronic voter fraud
ELECTORAL FRAUD AND VOTING MACHINES – It can be easier to commit electoral fraud through electronic voting – KENYANS BEWARE!!!!
All voting systems face threats of some form of electoral fraud. The types of threats that affect voting machines can vary from other forms of voting systems, some threats may be prevented and others introduced."Threat Analyses & Papers". National Institute of Standards and Technology. October 7, 2005.http://vote.nist.gov/threats/papers.htm. Retrieved 5 March 2011.
 Means of electoral fraud through electronic voting machinesSome forms of electoral fraud specific to electronic voting machines are listed below. Although most believe that tampering with an electronic voting machine is extremely hard to do, recent research at Argonne National Laboratories demonstrates that if a malicious actor is able to gain physical access to a voting machine, it can be a simple process to manipulate certain electronic voting machines, such as the Diebold Accuvote TS, by inserting inexpensive, readily available electronic components inside the machine. 
Tampering with the software of a voting machine to add malicious code altering vote totals or favor any candidate. Multiple groups have demonstrated this possibility.[31. Private companies manufacture these machines. Many companies will not allow public access or review of the machines source code, claiming fear of exposing trade secrets.
Tampering with the hardware of the voting machine to alter vote totals or favor any candidate..Some of these machines require a smartcard to activate the machine and vote. However, a fraudulent smart card could attempt to gain access to vote multiple times..Abusing the administrative access to the machine by election officials might also allow individuals to vote multiple times.  Means of preventionFurther information: Certification of voting machines. One method for verifying voting machine accuracy is Parallel Testing, the process of using an independent set of results compared against the original machine results. Parallel testing can be done prior to or during an election. During an election, one form of parallel testing is the VVPAT. This method is only effective if statistically significant numbers of voters verify that their intended vote matches both the electronic and paper votes.
On election day, a statistically significant number of voting machines can be randomly selected from polling locations and used for testing. This can be used to detect potential fraud or malfunction unless manipulated software would only start to cheat after a certain event like a voter pressing a special key combination (Or a machine might cheat only if someone doesn’t perform the combination, which requires more insider access but fewer voters).
Another form of testing is Logic & Accuracy Testing (L&A), pre-election testing of voting machines using test votes to determine if they are functioning correctly.
Another method to insure the integrity of electronic voting machines is independent software verification and certification. Once software is certified, code signing can insure the software certified is identical to that which is used on election day. Some argue certification would be more effective if voting machine software was publicly available or open source.
Certification and testing processes conducted publicly and with oversight from interested parties can promote transparency in the election process. The integrity of those conducting testing can be questioned.
Testing and certification can prevent voting machines from being a black box where voters can not be sure that counting inside is done as intended.
One method that people have argued would help prevent these machines from being tampered with would be for the companies that produce the machines to share the source code, which displays and captures the ballots, with computer scientists. This would allow external sources to make sure that the machines are working correctly
Learn more from links below: