There really isn't. Let me give you a really "fresh" example of why. A judge in AZ came out a couple days ago to sanction lawyers who filed a lawsuit in an election fraud claims. People on the blog couldn't even differentiate what he said, which was this:

"Plaintiffs and their experts may be entitled to opine about the sufficiency of the testing that Arizona's machines undergo, but they are not entitled to allege that no such testing takes place," Tuchi wrote.

That was a mighty fine way of saying you can talk all day about if those test are adequate or not but you can't say they didn't perform them. That's pretty much called a run around the subject. It doesn't even necessarily have to be fraud being talked about, the machines could just malfunction, which was what those who brought the case were talking about, but people aren't suppose to care because the machines were tested prior, as such you can't question the integrity of the machines or second guess those who performed the test. The machines can go haywire and start communicating with each other, please do feel free to talk about that as much as you like but don't say the machines were never tested.

So you can clearly see what he did there. At least I can. He totally side stepped the issue. Here's another twist of tongue he did.

He sanctioned them because they said people didn't cast ballots. He said you can't mislead people by saying ballots weren't cast.

The plaintiffs claim in pleadings that they never alleged in the lawsuit that the system isn't based on paper ballots, but that's also incorrect, Tuchi wrote. He gave specific examples, such as where Lake and Finchem said they were required to cast their votes "through electronic voting systems," and that overall, the lawsuit has an "overarching implication" that Arizona does not have an "auditable, paper-ballot based voting system."

Tuchi noted the lawsuit attacks the county's use of "optical scanners and ballot marking devices," even though 99.98% of Maricopa County voters marked their ballots themselves.

"A system that uses paper ballots for recording votes and electronic machines for tabulating them remains a 'paper-based voting system,'" Tuchi wrote, referring to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission of Glossary of Terms database.

They were talking about the machine that actually cast the vote. Yes people fill out ballots. Yes people cast that ballot into a machine. But it's the machine that actually cast what is suppose to be the intent of the voter. So in the case in 2020 were felt markers bled through the ballot and miscast the voters intent is similar to what they were talking about. The machine not the voter ends up casting the actual vote. It clearly does not mean the machine did it with sufficiency.

People clearly can't comprehend between the intent of what the filing was about or they simply don't want to because it benefitted one side over the other and that's all that mattered to them. They don't care that the judge side stepped the issues involved all that they care about is he sidestepped it in their favor and he punished the people to try and deter them from questioning the integrity of the electoral process. When you can't question the checks and balances in place than you've opened the whole system up to fraud.

I am not saying there was or wasn't fraud involved, I am not saying the machines malfunctioned, what I am saying though is when we can't question the integrity of the voting process without fear of retaliation we've done lost. There's a whole lot of people out there that are either totally unable to comprehend the most basic subject matter or a whole lot of people who don't comprehend the consequences involved. We can't open the machines up to audits because it would give away patented trade secrets of the company involved or it might compromise confidential voter data is ensuring that those who want to fraud the system has free access to do so without question.