This is an excellent overview & much needed context. I read the (very short) OP but didn't dive into other sections of the website (which is not an initiative I

This is an excellent overview & much needed context. I read the (very short) OP but didn't dive into other sections of the website (which is not an initiative I'd previously been aware of). Probably a difficult task to ensure all readers of all pages on the entire website are fully aware of this context in advance - I'd imagine this kind of averse reaction will continue to be common until these kind of hybrid systems become more widespread (or the interests pushing paperless are comprehensively silenced, which seems less likely). --- That said, now that I do have full context, I do have two criticisms: 1. Clicking through to the VotingWorks frontpage, the copy still doesn't really highlight in a very obvious manner the paper nature of the system. You really have to analyse the website to figure this detail out. 2. The homepage does contain a section entitled "Faster Election Results" - which I do think flies directly in the face of many criticisms in the HN comments here & I personally believe to be an approach that's incompatible with democratic integrity. Counts should simply not be trying to be fast as a high priority - verifying the automated count by hand is insufficient if it isn't done as a matter of course. Ideally, live, while the count is taking place. The latter is not feasible with an automated system, & the former is a lot more likely to be overlooked if speed is a priority. We don't just need systems that can be fair, we need systems that incentivize fairness & don't contain perverse incentives - count speed is exactly such an incentive.