The report has brought square into the mainstream an obscure but increasingly nasty debate between about 900 computer scientists, who warn that these machines are untrustworthy, and state and local election officials and machine manufacturers, who insist that they are reliable.
Right. The election officials know more than the computer scientists about the computers. Right.
Here’s an idea. Let’s just make it known that in any district that holds an election without voter-verified paper backups, we’ll sue, and claim that the election was fixed, and require them to prove it wasn’t. And since they can’t prove it without paper backups, they will have to hold the elections over again, and over again, until they put in systems with paper backups so we can all rest assured that OUR votes were counted and not The Party’s votes.
I mean, it’s really so simple. Without a voter-verified paper backup there is no way to know if the votes are recorded correctly. Period. And if we don’t have any way to be sure our votes are correctly recorded, why should we trust the results? Someone ALWAYS tries to rig elections! Is this a difficult concept to understand?
And the voting machine companies would make more money if they sold add-ons that print voter-verifiable paper trails. So why are they fighting this so hard? That certainly makes me suspicious! And one suspicious voter is too many. So it’s settled. Right?