> Useful comparison, but to my point: is that sufficient to detect fake entries created by incumbent insiders?

Scandals regarding voter roll fraud are extremely rare. I can only think of one scandal from 2014 where a farmer was alleged to have seasonal laborers register and vote for the party of his wife by mail [1]. In the end, the case against the farmer ended up being tossed on insufficient evidence.

> Also: has that in-person mechanism ever been used by stalkers/abusers to find their hiding targets?

If someone is in hiding and legally protected, it is not allowed to contest these entries [2] since the threshold is very high. For "normal" people, you have to bring clear evidence that fraud may have occurred.

[1] https://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/geiselhoering-wahlfaelsch...

[2] https://www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Document/BayVV_2021_I_...

Thanks but I don't understand how either of your replies are responsive to my questions.

The number of reported/memorable fraud scandals is not itself a reliable indicator of whether the proper controls are in place. It is only an accurate estimate of the actual fraud if you already assume the controls are working.

I don't know what you mean about "contesting" entries. The original report implied people could review the voter rolls - not just their own entry, or some small number of intentional challenges - by going in person. If they can review the names & addresses of all voters, stalkers/abusers could leverage that. If instead they can only "contest" certain entries by name after specific articulable suspicion, that's a much narrower kind of review, which again seems to offer none of the protection against insider fraud that exists in more transparent democracies.