If an election was stolen and there's no evidence of it

[planetc]

133. Rather than "some nefarious vote-fraud conspiracy,"

I think that what we are seeing is a system whose essential elements, computerized voting machines, and computerized vote tallies, are *designed* to be unauditable. I am saying that the software in Diebold machines is "proprietary." That means no one but the manufacturer is supposed to look at it, examine it, or test it for security. And, as one computer security expert snorted, how complex can this operation be? The system only has to count accurately. And yet, it appears that ALL our shine new voting equipment was supplied without self-auditing software.

By contrast with these machines, I do much of my banking on an ATM machine manufactured by Diebold. Can the transactions of these machines be audited? You bet your sweet bippy then can. No self-respecting bank or credit union would touch an ATM with a ten foot pole if every transaction could not be checked every 24 hours at least. This machine also supplies me with a paper record of my transaction, so that, if any discrepancy appears between my records of my account and my bank's records, I will have proof of what I told the machine to do.

Now, If my local Diebold ATM IS auditable and CAN supply a paper record, why have voting districts across the country bought the Model T version of voting machines? I wonder about that, and when I contemplate the Help America Vote Act, I think I see the hint of an answer.

I do wish, apocalypsehow, that you address the question of the voting "system's" complete inability to offer evidence that their results are accurate. It's not even just that the evidence of fraud is almost unobtainable, it's that our system can't prove it IS accurate. Vote tallies can't be verified by simple, cheap recounts--they can't be verified by anything, as far as I can tell.