Arguably having a "correct" winner matters the least in tight elections. If the margin of victory is as-low as 1% then it hardly matters which candidate wins -

Arguably having a "correct" winner matters the least in tight elections. If the margin of victory is as-low as 1% then it hardly matters which candidate wins - that election is already subject to the influence of weather, chance, accident and human counting error. There really is no supernatural magic to democracy that invests within the winner a moral or judgemental superiority. The ceremony and culture we surround democracy with can create that illusion. In an almost holy way, we anoint the winner and assign to them a minor god-like status. Their choice is said to reflect the will of the people, to be the personification of a mandate. But rationally, we should realise that a candidate who wins by 1% is about as likely to lose if the election was run the next day. What's scary about e-voting is that democracy is really only very good at preventing complete tyranny. Potential tyrants are unlikely to gain enough votes. But with e-voting, errors of 50% are as easy and as likely as errors of 1%.