If large scale fraud is suspected, results of exams will be annulled.

If a person is found cheating (and no other interference), that person's exam results will be annulled.

Why do you think this is not the case?

In this case, one person suspected of cheating (only suspected, he is not convicted or even charged with anything at all!) has led to the annulment of the entire exam. Only one of the candidates was found to have cheated, during their campaign. The voting process was found to be perfectly secure and to accurately reflect the intention of the people who voted. And yet, the entire election, starting not just from the vote, but from the moment that all candidates registered and started their campaign, has been annulled and started from scratch.

Any party who wishes to participate in the elections will have to start from step 0, from collecting 200k signatures of people who support their candidacy.

Key part: large-scale fraud.

This is not fraud. Voting fraud is when you manipulate ballots. It's amazing how well intentioned people here tend to believe that voters are influenced toddlers who can't be trusted. Why even have elections?

> This is not fraud. Voting fraud

That's the problem with analogies: they are always inadequate.

> tend to believe that voters are influenced toddlers who can't be trusted.

No, people tend to believe that things like canoeing financing, income sources, political ads etc. have to be disclosed and monitored.