« first day (1395 days earlier)   

1:13 AM
@GorchestopherH The second suggestion is kindof what the second link does. But to your real point of "Anything can be compromised": That's exactly why there needs to be a way to verify it. If a random sampling of 100 paper ballots turns up significantly different results that you'd expect from the totals reported by the machine, then you know you need more investigation. If the results from one precinct (or other area) seem significantly out of line with expectations,
you know you need more investigation.
And if your definition of "more investigation" is "Go ask the machines for their numbers again", you'll get the same result you did the first time around, and be left with a puzzle: Did every vote get counted correctly? Were there shenanigans?
But if your definition is "Lets try a different method of counting" (such as physically tallying paper by hand instead of machine, or using a different machine to count physical ballots instead of using automated totals), then you can answer those questions and have a meaningful recount.
And, it goes both ways: The government is protected against outsiders corrupting the voting, by having multiple redundant ways to verify it, and outsiders are (somewhat) protected against governmental influence by being able to do an independent audit.
All of which is dependent on having two separate ways to count each vote.
 

« first day (1395 days earlier)