To understand criticism with electronic voting system let's assume the best case: say you make the perfect, mathematically verified voting software. That is per

To understand criticism with electronic voting system let's assume the best case: say you make the perfect, mathematically verified voting software. That is perfectly up to date each election. That runs on open yet tampersafe hardware that is as the stickers say never obsolete. That notices any human error and hacking attempt (not that such a thing exists). Even with that utopian scenario the remaining problem is that the goal of elections is agreeable consent. Mewning the goal isn't just to get a decision. The goal is to get a decision, people can agree with because they trust the process must have been okay. If your vote is low stakes, like where you go for lunch with your collegues, then that trust doesn't matter, who cares if it was wrong? But if it is high stakes even a perfect digital system is problematic, because even intelligent, technological expert voters have no chance of understanding which of the moving parts might influence what in which way in practise. Meaning a paper ballot with the right process can more or less be understood by everybody who can count and has mastered the cognitive skill of object permanence. A Rust project with a 30k Cargo.lock file filled with dependencies on an even more complex operating system, running complex (in a different way) hardware, that might differ for each voting location isn't that. And that isn't about the programming language or the tech stack. It is about the intransparent nature of electronic systems themselves. I spent a three quarters of my life learning programming and electronics including hardware design and I teach that stuff on a university level. Even I would have a hard time ensuring there is really no backdoor in the whole stack. And this fact means even if there is no backdoor in it, there might be and there is no realistic way for a normal person to check. I understand the nerd appeal. It is cool to toy around and figure that problem out. But the core of the problem is not technological it is sociological. That is such a big flaw that IMO it is not worth it for high stakes elections.