I don't see the previous comment as recommending bloodshed.

I do see it warning that it's a possible outcome.

As for technical solutions - paper ballots make this a solved problem, albeit a labour-intensive one. (How much effort is democracy worth?)

The idea that vote counting contracts should ever have been be handed to contractors *who fund specific political parties and have been indicted for bribery and other criminal acts" is almost surreal in its aggressive disdain for verifiable electoral fairness.

https://columbusfreepress.com/article/diebold-indicted-its-s...

https://www.accesswire.com/471912/Voting-Technology-Companie...

I'm not in agreement about violence being the answer, but when the democracy has already been subverted, democratic action is very unlikely to be possible to fix it. It's then a populist power struggle that usually leads to violence. No one in the US government these days actually does much more than lip service to the idea of democracy, and we have long been going away from direct democracy for quite some time. The regularity that public opinion mismatches policy actions is staggering, and the amount of pressure of disagreement it takes to stop an unpopular policy is crazy.

JFK put it simply: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”