No, at least in my circles nobody thinks electronic voting is a good idea.
I think Tom Scott has the best argument: you can't build a system that requires you to have a PhD in computer science to fully understand why you should trust it. Every day people need to have faith in voting and not just because a group of experts say they should.
We put our faith into systems built by PhDs every day. People don’t have to understand why airplanes stay in the air in order for them to be the only practical means of rapid international transport.
I can watch an airplane fly and be confident that it's actually flying. I can watch election workers count and be confident that they're actually counting. I don't need to know why something works when I can personally observe it working.
But I can't observe the operation of an electronic voting system. All I can see is the result, and a fraudulent result looks very much like a legitimate result. I'm forced to understand it (which is likely impossible considering the complexity of modern hardware) or to trust people who have incentives to cheat me.
It's also inconsequential when people say that planes are a lie from the fake news media. Science works whether or not you believe in it. Elections, not so much.
If people just decide not to believe the results of an election, then democracy falls apart.
Because the fact that the maths add up to allowing for planes to fly doesn't need to be understood to be accepted. On the other hand, the process of electing a representative from a group must be understood to not be contested or misrepresented.
But people do have to understand at least at a high level why the announced result matches what the voters put in. The whole point of a voting system is not to pick a winner, but convincingly show that the loser(s) lost.
Undermining trust in the voting system is an old trick. Unless the voting system can show such allegations to be wrong, its results will remain disputed.
OTOH you have people who don't know how vaccines work, don't trust doctors, and have opted not to get them, jeopardizing public health. If such people can exist, just imagine what would happen if there was a misinformation campaign targeting the losing side, with the aim of convincing that the e-voting election was rigged/flawed/broken, and that they should stage an insurrection to remove the current "illegitimate" government.
Yes? The whole point is that paper voting works, and is still semi-provably secure. Ten year olds can understand how voting works with paper, with an electronic system you need to read papers just to understand it.
You also forget that you still have to put blind faith in the implementation of the electronic system - you've just moved the social aspect.
Also, with a aeroplane you can trust the engineering because the proof is in the pudding - they're safe as safe can be with flights every minute of everyday. With an election if something goes wrong you are almost literally fucked as a country.
I think Tom Scott has the best argument: you can't build a system that requires you to have a PhD in computer science to fully understand why you should trust it. Every day people need to have faith in voting and not just because a group of experts say they should.