The gist of it is that letting the loser of an election check to see the names of people who voted for the winner amounts to a means to collect the names of voters, which allows the losing candidate to harass those voters.
I understand that part, but by denying any sort of validation check on the ballots, there's no way for the losing party to have confidence that they lost fairly.
The winning party and the bureaucrats affiliated with the losing party don't have a problem with the losing party not having confidence in the elections. It actually serves their purpose better if they stay home and don't vote.
The problem really isn't really whether or not Kari Lake lost fair and square, but that the dems see no reason to look into the claims of fraud and prove it because they don't believe they'll ever end up on the other end of this problem.
Actually, the vote itself is inside, and doesn't need to be visible to the auditor. Whether the signature actually belongs to a registered voter by that name is what's being tested--and that's visible on the outside. If that's wrong, the vote is just thrown out and its vote subtracted.
But there's no violation of a voter's privacy involved. If the signature is bad, it didn't belong to a real voter. A real, registered voter's vote is not being revealed, and there's no one to harass.
But that is not the case. These are signatures on the envelopes.The ballots are not seen so you would not know who they voted for.