[darawk]

> Affecting a(n electorally) significant number of paper votes requires the compromise of more people and leaves more evidence than for electronic votes. (In general, for the quality of voting generally seen in first world countries)

If we didn't have an electoral college, that might be true. But the reality is that you don't need to compromise that many people in that many places to have a decent probability of tipping a close election one way or the other.

> Can you do better in theory, yes. Have we seen any evidence that various US election bodies can do better through using electronic voting, no. The exact opposite in fact.

Which is exactly why DARPA is researching the problem.