No, he's saying that if there is some problem with the election, the actual record of the voter intent for all the voters can be dragged into a court of law and sorted out.
This can be done under the public eye, with mutually distrustful parties evaluating the vote intent fairly, and in the open.
That's something electronic systems do not, and are not capable of offering us.
Why?
They do not record voter intent, only what a machine determined the intent to be. A voter must trust the machine, and can never really understand whether or not their vote intent record actually reflects their intent, They cannot understand this because, unlike media which presents an unbroken chain of trust between intent and the record of the intent used for the tally, electronic means are a proxy, and do not use human readable records, which breaks the chain of trust.
A voter can and should be suspect in this case as the creator of the proxy (machine) may well not be compliant with both their intent and the law.
This can be done under the public eye, with mutually distrustful parties evaluating the vote intent fairly, and in the open.
That's something electronic systems do not, and are not capable of offering us.
Why?
They do not record voter intent, only what a machine determined the intent to be. A voter must trust the machine, and can never really understand whether or not their vote intent record actually reflects their intent, They cannot understand this because, unlike media which presents an unbroken chain of trust between intent and the record of the intent used for the tally, electronic means are a proxy, and do not use human readable records, which breaks the chain of trust.
A voter can and should be suspect in this case as the creator of the proxy (machine) may well not be compliant with both their intent and the law.