There is a huge difference between engineering a clumsy fraud on a local election with low turnout and engineering a fraud involving several states in hundreds of counties using many different voting systems. Not to say that I oppose a paper trail.
"I don't really understand their strategy
... if I went to my shareholder meetings and my analyst meeting and said, 'Hey, we just launched a new product that has no revenue model — yeah, cheer for me' I'm not sure my investors would take that very well, but that's what Google's telling their investors about Android," he said.
Link to Original Source
This is more frustrating than that time I tried to learn brainf*ck.
Regarding the PERFORM Act, it fundamentally offends the principle of free speech that you would contemplate mandating that only certain forms of communication (those using approved DRM) would be permitted for those broadcasting over the Internet. You can only do harm by persisting in seeking to impose controls over — not what information — but how information itself is disseminated. Beyond the constitutional offense inherent in what you contemplate, there are anti-market and anti-innovation assumptions inherent in your assumption that you can dictate exclusively which forms of technology are to be used. Finally, you clearly endanger the principle of fair use by mandating all internet broadcasts must be protected by DRM, which, by law, may not be circumvented. As I know you to be a progressive I am confident you will see the error in your approach and stand down.