>According to every expert on the subject it's the most effective means we have right now. Citation is needed for this. I know of no expert that recommends thi

>According to every expert on the subject it's the most effective means we have right now. Citation is needed for this. I know of no expert that recommends this and no argument for this. I've already pointed out how an electronic+paper system would be extremely vulnerable to attack. All you need is for the count to be different between the two for no one to trust your election. >If you would like to compare countries and voting systems, I welcome that discussion, but unless it works specifically for the US, it's not relevant. There's nothing about the way elections are properly run everywhere else that wouldn't work in the US. Implement enough voting booths properly staffed and you'll have no issues. If you can't do that you also can't implement any complex electronic system so this discussion is pointless.