The problem is: Average Joe or my mother are not going to understand it. And a democratic process that is not transparent to everyone is not democratic. Also v

The problem is: Average Joe or my mother are not going to understand it. And a democratic process that is not transparent to everyone is not democratic. Also voting by paper ballot is not less efficient or slower than voting with voting machines. I used to live in a rather large district and observed the counts of several elections (communal and federal). Communal elections are a major clusterfuck of parties, lists, individual candidates; every voter has 3 votes that may be distributed according to certain rules, etc., etc. And even with that mess counting all the votes the mandatory two passes took less than 3 hours. Yet it took another 5 hours for the official result to be announced. That 5 hour overhead would have still been there if electronic voting machines would have been used. Also a lot of people forget that it's not a democracy's goal to be efficient, but to be just and, well democratic. If you want efficiency you want some form of dictatorship, technocracy or other top-down heavy from of government. Personally I don't care if I get the result of the election the same day, or a week later. Usually the actual administration will not form for another few weeks or so, due to playing their cards with all the other parties, forming coalitions and such.