119 go into the basis or rationale of the dissent. It is critical however that we point out that the dissent suggests that we should sacrifice a core and principle value upon which our legal jurisprudence is built or that we should choose to ignore the basic principle behind that value that is part of the bedrock that has guided our jurisprudence. We do not, for example, disagree with him that there was some evidence that fraud and irregularities were committed at a few polling places. What we disagree with him is that a conclusion can or should thereby be reached that on account of the less that ten centers for which evidence was presented the entire 5,390 polling places should also be adjudged of commission of fraud and irregularities, and thus that the entire elections should be cancelled and a rerun ordered. Indeed, our esteemed colleague goes even further. He would have us overturn the entire elections even if fraud was shown in only a single instance and at a single polling place, since proof of a single fraud is sufficient to annul the elections. We disagree, for it would mean that in every election held, it will take only one person, who could show that fraud or irregularities were committed at one polling place to overturn the entire elections without any further proof that a substantial number of the polling places were also involved in fraud and irregularities. Stated another way, this will mean that no person who makes an allegation of overwhelming massive fraud and irregularities throughout the entire electoral spectrum can or should be held to proof of the allegations made; that such person had only to show one or two instances at one or two polling centers, and the Court must then thereby conclude that the complainant has met the standard of the burden of proof. This will mean that the elections would be unending and it would provide a recipe for chaos in our electoral system and process. What is required, in our view, is not merely a demonstration that there was massive fraud or irregularities at a few polling centers, but rather that there was fraud and/or irregularities committed at an enormous number of polling places such that a conclusion could be drawn that absent such fraud or irregularities, the results of the elections would be different. Alternatively, the appellants could have shown that there was conspiracy by the Commission to have its staff commit the fraud and irregularities referred to by the appellants. But this would call into question whether if this was a conspiracy, only a few centers would have been targeted and not the entire electoral spectrum.