Here's my experience in Germany: My polling station is less than 200m away. I have never waited more than two minutes to vote. All voting is with a pen on a pa

Here's my experience in Germany: My polling station is less than 200m away. I have never waited more than two minutes to vote. All voting is with a pen on a paper ballot. Once the precinct closes, you are allowed to stay and observe the counting. Because each polling place serves only a couple hundred voters, it is easy to follow the counting. As long as it is possible to do so without interfering, everyone can observe so closely they can read the actual ballots and verify that they are sorted into the correct piles. You can then watch the counting of those piles close enough to verify the count. Later, you can go online and look up the row for your precinct in a spreadsheet. This is end-to-end verifiability, and it is neither expensive nor unable to scale: A national election in Germany will see about 40 million voters. What's most important: Unlike blockchain or any other online voting scheme, the whole process is easily understandable by everyone. In times were every institution is suspected to be corrupt, being merely safe is not enough. It needs to be safe in a way that does not rely on experts in cryptography to say so. I have seen only one valid objection to using this process in the US: It is far more common there to have elections with dozens of individual races and ballot issues. Germany usually has just two individual questions to be voted on, and maybe five when local and national races fall on the same day. Considering this, it would still be possible to use the process for the top X races on a given election day.