In Russia, there are ballot boxes that automatically count ballots. No fancy technology here - they just scan ballot, detect mark position, and after the end of the election day these ballot boxes just print resulting report.
These ballot boxes are installed on some small percent of polling stations(like 5% or 10% - I don't remember the exact number). But statistical analysis shows that electoral fraud is commited considerably less often on such polling stations. I don't know, whether it is actually more difficult to cheat on such stations(at least there is a physical limitation - you can't put more than one ballot at a time, because it is needed to be scanned, - as opposed to normal ballot box where you can easily put 10-20 ballots at once), or whether they decided to install such automated boxes on polling stations where they had no intention to commit fraud. But my point is:
1) "Paper-voting" is no guarantee of fair elections.
2) Sometimes "hi-tech" may even help you, if you use it properly.
You make a fair point about electronic voting(and I wholeheartedly agree with you), but it looks like you overestimate the reliability of old-fashioned methods.
To summarize, I'm calling you "not-enough-paranoid kook". :)
I believe you're describing the mark sense style ballot scanners. Because you still have a paper ballot, they are not electronic ballots. (Apologies for not being more clear.)
I agree with your point, and only would add that the consensus among the election integrity experts is that poll-based ballot scanners which tally onsite immediately after the polls close are the most correct answer. This system has the lowest error rate. It is the easiest to audit (eg conduct a manual recount). Tampering with the results would be the most difficult (largest attack surface area).
The crucial trait of paper ballots cast and tabulated at poll sites is that such as system CAN be done correctly. Meaning enable the public vote count while ensuring the secret ballot. No electronic ballot system can make those guarantees, under any circumstances.
PS- I worked as a poll judge and poll inspector for a handful of elections. The jurisdiction where I reside had the same system as you described. It worked fabulously well. It was cheap. We've since moved to all postal ballots (vote by mail). Central count is a sausage factory. I fought against the transition, lost but was able to get some concessions, such as improved accounting (ballot processing) procedures.
These ballot boxes are installed on some small percent of polling stations(like 5% or 10% - I don't remember the exact number). But statistical analysis shows that electoral fraud is commited considerably less often on such polling stations. I don't know, whether it is actually more difficult to cheat on such stations(at least there is a physical limitation - you can't put more than one ballot at a time, because it is needed to be scanned, - as opposed to normal ballot box where you can easily put 10-20 ballots at once), or whether they decided to install such automated boxes on polling stations where they had no intention to commit fraud. But my point is: 1) "Paper-voting" is no guarantee of fair elections. 2) Sometimes "hi-tech" may even help you, if you use it properly.
You make a fair point about electronic voting(and I wholeheartedly agree with you), but it looks like you overestimate the reliability of old-fashioned methods.
To summarize, I'm calling you "not-enough-paranoid kook". :)