One of the most common faulty belief in voting system proposals including those considered in the article is that it is that it is fine to trust elite that the

One of the most common faulty belief in voting system proposals including those considered in the article is that it is that it is fine to trust elite that the system is working as specified. This assumption goes long before any cryptography were considered and is just more elaborate version of Edison's voting machine. Newer designs have recognized the need to prevent authority to know who voted for what. However in doing so they do obstruct the evidence that a legitimate voter had voted at most once. Often the evidence includes either to trust the system or officials with confidential access who can audit the system which can be meaningful if the system is software independent. However then we are left with problem that auditors may collude... In the end the system is very expensive to maintain and ironically state elections have been more expensive than voting with a paper ballot schemes. The net result is that elections electronic voting systems are equivalent to a single ballot box which is supervised by a small elite. The electronic part just have made it possible. In this absurd reality we may as well substitute elections with taking surveys.