Yet these machines have held up where challenged, and paper recounts have confirmed their results. So there is evidence that, in general, things are OK. This i

Yet these machines have held up where challenged, and paper recounts have confirmed their results. So there is evidence that, in general, things are OK. This idea that there is no evidence that the system works is just wrong. There's plenty, and that's in stark contrast to the 'evidence' that the election was stolen. I agree that an reliable and transparent system is the best, and should be the aim, and I'm sure there is room for massive improvement, I wouldn't seek to deny it. But likewise you can't just dismiss the evidence that the election was OK as "I don't trust it", when there are a variety of measures taken that are positive evidence of reliability, with no particular evidence it wasn't.