Well in an election run along sensible lines you have a rule that all ballots have to be in by the end of the election day, no exceptions, and you advise people as to when they have to send off the vote if they are to be sure of getting there on time.

Then you count all the votes at the same time, and if it's a close vote (with the candidates or their nominated representatives deciding what close means) you check them all by hand before you announce any result at all.

But I don't think many people think that the election we'rer talking about was run on sensible lines. So maybe there's more need to adjust the rules to achieve some greater degree of fairness.

I'd assume that tight rules on postal votes would be to intended as a way of reducing the likelihood of fraud, which must be particularly easy in such cases - and of course letting out results in dribs and drabs might have been designed to encourage that kind of thing.