All of the secrecy surrounding voting machines, their claims of IP, trade secrets, and all the other BS, when coupled with the fundamentally untrustworthy natur

All of the secrecy surrounding voting machines, their claims of IP, trade secrets, and all the other BS, when coupled with the fundamentally untrustworthy nature of the machines, makes me very suspicious. Given the input trust problem that I outlined above, I personally would have a huge ethical problem even making one of these machines. Our current level of technology does not offer a solution for this problem set, where we have to record intent and not make it personally identifiable. Think about it. That doesn't come up very often. The other odd thing is that election security has been somehow linked with secrecy. It really doesn't need to be that way. The whole process should be wide open, and it can be that way because we do not associate voter intent with voters. All we really need is a bit of privacy for the voter to vote, and from there, all else can be human readable, under the public eye. Again, I struggle with that, Because it looks for all the world like a clever sleight-of-hand, almost deliberate intent to deceive. Conflate these things to create problems that are not, and then sell solutions to non problems! Do these voting machine companies truly not understand what I put in my parent comment? Really? If they do, why are they making machines? They do not work, and are untrustworthy. And go look like I did. We simply do not have trustworthy methods that do not also require votes be personally identifiable. Simple paper ballots with marks on them work great. If they do not understand, then there is a competence issue. Neither scenario is good. Which is it, or is it really something else, something nefarious? I do not like any of it. The whole mess is ultra shady.