120 Thus, here again, proof would have been required to show that the bulk of the electoral spectrum was affected. That proof was lacking. We are therefore not prepared to take the course of our esteemed colleague and explore that realm of speculation or sacrifice the law for convenience. The evidence must be overwhelming such as would warrant this Court ordering that new elections ne held from scratch. There can be no lesser standard. The parties involved in the process were expected to appreciate all of the intricacies of elections today, unlike in the pass, and hence that they will put into place every safeguard to protect their interest and ensure that they are not cheated, that the elections are not rigged, and that the elections are free, fair and transparent. The evidence did not show that they sufficiently deployed personnel to guide and protect their interests. Otherwise, they would have be able to gather the evidence required to make the case of massive fraud and irregularities throughout the electoral process and covering the entire nation or a greater part of the nation. We hold therefore that while the appellants did show that indeed fraud and irregularities were committed during the October 10, 2017 presidential and legislative elections at the centers for which evidence was presented, there was a rather strange lack of evidence by the appellants that those fraudulent acts and irregularities occurred throughout the country and at the greater number of polling places or that they were of such magnitude as to justify the cancellation of the October 10, 2017 elections and the ordering of a rerun as opposed to a run-off. Our review of the records revealed two important points: (a) that indeed and in fact there were elections violations and irregularities by persons employed by the NEC to participate in the conduct of the October 10, 2017 Presidential and Representatives Elections; and (b) that although there were violations, they were not shown to be so overwhelming as to enable us to draw the conclusion that the results would have been different had the violations and irregularities not occurred. We do not here say that the violations and irregularities were not of the magnitude alleged by the appellant or that they may not have been of the magnitude alleged. They very well could have been. All we say, however, is that the first and second appellants did not produce the evidence in such magnitude as to lead to the conclusion that violations and irregularities were widespread or was of