You have a funny idea of what "demonstrably disproven" means.
In fact, your whole answer is baffling, because you bring in completely unrelated topics.
You act as if I'm some wildeyed radical, when I'm merely relaying the universal consensus of computer security experts, most of who are quite conservative.
Here's an example: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/04/securing_electi_1.html
"Recently, there have been two graphic demonstrations of how bad our computerized voting system is. In 2007, the states of California and Ohio conducted audits of their electronic voting machines. Expert review teams found exploitable vulnerabilities in almost every component they examined. The researchers were able to undetectably alter vote tallies, erase audit logs, and load malware on to the systems. Some of their attacks could be implemented by a single individual with no greater access than a normal poll worker; others could be done remotely."
Bruce Schneier is probably the leading security expert in the world. But I'm unaware of any authority who has serious differences with this opinion.
The question is very simple.
Does this "audit", whatever it is, including allowing the software to be examined in great detail by independent third parties (as well as some way of proving that exactly that software is in the machine)?
If so, then this meets the conditions I proposed and might be secure. If not, the software requires us to trust a secret program written by people of varying degrees of competence who might have political biases, or more likely, are simply not security experts.
Given that the Republicans have blatantly lied and cheated for generations now, why is it so inconceivable to you that a voting machine manufacturer would also cheat in their software? Or simply make a lot of terrible mistakes (as in the Schneier article above)? Or be owned by a hostile foreign power:
Why you bring up capitalism baffles me. What does this have to do with capitalism?
Why is having open source voting software "giving up on democracy"? It's like some word salad - "bad faith/obstruction/democracy/capitalism".
It's my feeling you really don't anything about computer security, and are attempting to obscure this by saying a lot of stuff.
(I would like to add that I'm not a computer security expert either, but I've been making a living as a computer programmer for over 40 years now and at least I have some idea of its precepts.)
"What would you have them do?" I would have the software and hardware design made open source, and the software cryptographically signed. This is not rocket science - we could have been doing this thirty years ago.
All security experts agree - open source is the only mechanism to secure software.
You are not a security expert, but more, you give no actual technical argument at all.
I think you're totally out of your depth here.
