I agree with you. 1. Traditional paper ballots, manual counting are easy for voters to understand and increases trust in the system. 2. I also agree that trad

I agree with you. 1. Traditional paper ballots, manual counting are easy for voters to understand and increases trust in the system. 2. I also agree that traditional voting seems to increase the cost of substantial rigging (with multiple points of failure) compared to all electronic systems we have seen. And yet: we all know the election rigging has always existed and will always exist and many times voters don't always understand how that is possible. I'm in a country where elections are considered by international standards to be fair: and yet, every election common people see reports and talk about rigging through various physical means (ie. Disappearing ballot boxes, stuffing ballot boxes, dead people voting). I agree that as a principle electronic voting seems to expose to rigging at lower cost and higher scale but I don't think it would be necessarily less trusted by the people.