So, three agenda-driven organizations could find 3.25 complaints from a cherry-picked sample of counties?
I would consider that experience a great success, considering there have got to be 3.25 chronic complainers, anti-machine activists and contrarians in every American county.
What about the tens of thousands who had no complaints?
The statement, "electronic voting in its current form is systematically flawed," is just a bald-faced lie.
"So, three agenda-driven organizations could find 3.25 complaints from a cherry-picked sample of counties?"
Actually, that seems to be a non sequitur. The conclusions that electronic 'voting' can't be sufficiently secure to provide valid elections, in contrast, remain.
Why would you consider totally non-auditable 'vote' counts from systems known to lose, switch, and fake votes, to be a 'success'? Voters had to stand around waiting, too, because the machines are unreliable. Some voters had to leave without voting. Is that what you consider good for Americans? One can't help but wonder why.
You mention those who didn't complain, but some people aren't willing or able to raise a fuss in public.
If you have any expertise in the 'bald-faced lie' department, it may only be in the production of such, if you attempt to claim that mystery boxes running mystery software operated by mystery individuals would constitute valid vote-counting.