So you no longer stand by your original statement where you said "But with pen and paper and envelopes and urns and observers and counters, you can determine that the system is doing the right thing"?
Somehow you have gone from one extreme (implying that a traditional paper voting system is always trustworthy) to another extreme (saying that all voting systems can be corrupted), which, by the way, is not true either. For example, the results of a voting system where all votes are public, can not be manipulated. This tiny example shows that clearly some voting systems can defend against corruption.
Somehow you have gone from one extreme (implying that a traditional paper voting system is always trustworthy) to another extreme (saying that all voting systems can be corrupted), which, by the way, is not true either. For example, the results of a voting system where all votes are public, can not be manipulated. This tiny example shows that clearly some voting systems can defend against corruption.