The main arguments against paper ballots are that they allow for marks that make the intent of the voter unclear and that they take more time and effort to tabu

The main arguments against paper ballots are that they allow for marks that make the intent of the voter unclear and that they take more time and effort to tabulate. The latter point shouldn't be an issue due to the importance of voting to Democracy. Allocate the money required for counting and simply deal with the time it takes to tabulate, which isn't all that long. The former could be addressed by having ballot MARKING machines instead of voting machines. Some jurisdictions have already moved in this direction. With a ballot marking machine, you can use a device such as a touchscreen that then prints out a ballot with your selections on it. You verify the correctness of your votes on the ballot. If they are not correct, it is a spoiled ballot that you witness being destroyed before using the ballot marking machine again. If the ballot is correct, you turn it in just as you would a completed human marked ballot. Given the standardized printing of the ballots by the ballot marking machine, they should also be machine readable without bar codes or any other non human readable form. If there is a question about the accuracy of the machine count, a human count can be used to verify correctness. The real gain here is the elimination of ambiguity in voter intent and the elimination of ballots that only exist inside of a computer.