[philipov]

If we presume that the promoters of the idea are intelligent and understand the consequences, then why is it not reasonable to think that the ability to affect elections or otherwise weaken the electoral system is the gain they seek?

[Klathmon]

I feel that misunderstanding and ignorance is more to blame than malice.

Many programmers know about the "beauty" of encryption and secure voting algorithms. They know that open source works, and it's really tempting to try and think up a system that is "perfect" and can't be gamed by anyone.

But this is an instance where messier and less "perfect" is better, because the absolute worst case scenario of being able to actually change the election is so much harder with paper, and anything less than that worst case scenario doesn't change anything (and still has all of the risks and downsides).