General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Kaptur Defeats Kucinich 94% to 4% on 100% Unverifiable E-Vote Systems in Toledo, OH? [View all]joshcryer
(62,269 posts)Under Ohio law the VVAT is legally considered a ballot for the purposes of a recount (there is no recount done by simply "re-tabulating" the data, it's done by hand on a VVAT, paper).
The whole argument hinges on voters "not reading the printout" when they're instructed to do so by the poll workers. It requires a woefully insulting view of voters and poll workers based on flawed studies where the voters weren't instructed to view the printout on new technology that they had no experience with.
If you hacked "the screen and the paper printout to say one thing and the CPU actually recording the vote to say something entirely different" it would be revealed by the audit. Therefore, it is a verifiable system.
So odd that you go from "it may be verifiable, but is is never verified unless you actually do an audit" to "real auditing is not possible even in principle."
Just compare the VVAT to the results. Simple. I already explained how the audit would reveal any hacks, and I was dismissed and insulted for pointing out the truth.
I am not advocating for the VVAT, btw.