I disagree. While I do agree that hand counting paper ballots is extremely time consuming and error prone, it's not the only alternative to an electronic voting

I disagree. While I do agree that hand counting paper ballots is extremely time consuming and error prone, it's not the only alternative to an electronic voting machine. The other alternative is a mechanical voting machine. No electronics and no software involved. I grew up in south Louisiana and this is the kind of voting machine that was used when my parents went to vote. The downside is that the machines were big and heavy. The voter steps inside the curtains and pulls a big lever that closes the curtains behind them and makes the machine ready for voting. The voter physically moves a lever for each choice. When they're done voting, they pull the big lever in opposite direction and it tallies their votes, returns the levers to their original positions, and opens the curtains. I don't know the exact procedure of reporting the polling station results, but I'm sure it required multiple individuals (and maybe even a supervisor) to read off the results from each voting machine. Even if you have a polling station with say 20 voting machines, that's just 20 additions per voting choice that must be summed. This is much easier and faster than hand counting paper ballots. Additionally, I think it would be nearly impossible to alter the voting machines in an attempt to steal votes. I would like to see this everywhere. Voting integrity and quick results.