"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.
THat's a lot of words to say nothing.
"Known" to do these things? Alleged, certainly. Known, hardly.
I dislike the electronic voting systems because they operate on software (I am in the aerospace software industry). I distrust them because there is no auditable paper trail. However, I do not know of any proven instances of fraud committed using these machines.
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.
You might try to establish your words as factual before accusing someone else of prevaricating.