The machine count of mail-in ballots is checked by a hand count audit. For instance, in Georgia every ballot was recounted by humans to confirm the accuracy of the machine count.

The hand count didn't address any of the risks people were actually worried about. It could not have caught either of the types of fraud I mentioned above, for example.

Read the interview I posted with Philip Stark, Berkeley Math Dean who is probably the leading expert on election auditing having designed the procedures for conducting risk-limiting audits in many states. He explains this in detail.

So scanning machines, the same ones we’ve used for decades, are compromised too? And that doesn’t show up in any of the routine audits that happen in a lot of states after an election?

What would you have people do? Maybe have the volunteers just scan the ballot by hand and then write down on paper the vote totals?

The argument just boils down to “machines are scary to me” and that isn’t a good enough reason to abandon progress that is routinely shown to work just fine.

Debating with the left on this is like debating with a brick wall. You try to have a logical conversation about the basic security aspects involved here and they respond by calling you a conspiracy theorist and change the underlying subject.

We've banned this account for using HN primarily for political/ideological battle. That's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.

Creating accounts to do that with will eventually get your main account banned as well, so please don't.

These rules apply regardless of which ideology an account is battling for or against. Our goal is not to have this site burn to a crisp of a particular color, but rather to have it not burn to a crisp at all.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html