There is lots of hyperbole about electronic voter fraud. At the other end of the spectrum, there are those who refuse to be open to the possibility.
I am a PhD computer scientist, with papers in computer security (anonymity and privacy). It is totally logical to attempt to verify that electronic fraud did not occur.
It would be irrational not verify the voting.
Nixon, Reagan (Iran), JFK (Illinois ballot stuffing). What makes you think Bush/Rove is any less likely to attempt to hold onto power?
Prof David Dill at Stanford CS has an outfit similar to blackboxvoting.org, called VerifiedVoting.org.
See also this
Wired Magazine article about blackboxvoting.org. Here is a
timeline exposing security flaws in Diebold, including the Howard Dean demonstration on CNBC TV, and the deposition for California election officials. (BlackBoxVoting.org's site is very amateurish, even sensationalist. Please do not judge a book by its cover.)
Exit polls are usually used to verify that fraud did not occur. This time the battleground state exit polls were so far off it prompted a high-profile right-winger to accuse the "liberal media" of attempting to sway the election with "bogus exit polls". Computer security experts draw a different conclusion, however.
I'm sorry to have to say it, but this is real. Welcome to the computer security age.