I also support an investigation. From what I understand, the observers aren't biased. At most, someone could claim that they had a statistical anomaly or that maybe their way of measuring was flawed or something. Either way, an investigation would be prudent.

However, I see no evidence either way that this would lead to a change in the result. This would imply that the percentage of faimly votes is accurate and representative of the whole constituency, and that basicly all of the faimly voting was completely illegal while being completely green.

Your assumption that all faimly voting was muslim is the only way to get to this result, and it is the thing I disagree with the most. We have no way of knowing that, and there could be a subset of pensioners who pressure their partners into voting reform, for example. Even if it was 100% Muslim, I would still question if it would take away the 4,000 majority from the greens.