Scott Adams points out that it's absurd that America can't audit our elections because the companies that made the machines claim that letting us review the software would endanger their intellectual property. What kind of proprietary algorithms are required to perform addition, anyway? Who in government agreed to an arrangement like this?
Note: Most claims of election fraud are probably false or mistaken, but "trust us" isn't an acceptable security policy. Our elections must be above reproach.
If we can't audit our nation's vote-counting software because the company claims it is proprietary information, I'm totally cool with that. But obviously the election has to be thrown out in whole for that very reason. I see no room for compromise on this point.Who agreed to a no-audit deal with an election software company? Name ANYTHING you have ever heard that is dumber. Literally anything. You can't.
Will the Supreme Court give a free pass to an election that was non-transparent BY DESIGN? Accidental would be one thing, but non-auditable voting machines are not an accident.
Will the House?
Anyway, auditing an election shouldn't require source code -- there should be secure logs. But apparently there aren't secure, trusted logs.
