> Secondly, layperson DO NOT by and large trust the results of paper voting elections.
That is false. Though there is some distrust in many parts of the world, the overall consensus is that the result of the vote was at least close to the real vote. Even in the USA after the recent election, many focused on accusations of fraud about voting machines (the infamous comments about "Hugo Chavez's machines").
I do agree that it's not a 100%/0% thing in practice - some people will always choose to trust or mistrust the government regardless of other facts; and some people know or are convinced by facts that others don't believe or don't have access to to trust or mistrust.
However, I would say the right response to pure electronic voting would actually be 0%. It's actually out of gullibility and misunderstanding that people put any trust in pure electronic voting *, when in fact it can be attacked in ways that not even the best expert in the world would ever notice, and this can be done by sophisticated out of state attackers (such as the USA or Chinese spy agencies). In such a high-stakes environment, you can't trust the CPU, you can't trust the RAM, you can't trust the USB controller, you can't trust the cables - everything could have been rigged to perform different computations than what was apparently programmed, and this would be often be impossible to prove.
* with the possible exception of electronic voting systems that make everyone's vote public, with obvious downsides. Though even there, I have some reservations - if I claim I voted differently than what the public ledger shows, what happens next?
You're again describing one type of electronic voting, while making an argument against all forms of electronic voting. Regarding this specific type of "black box" electronic voting, yes, I agree with you, it's horrible. Now, it isn't the only type of electronic voting out there. I recommend you familiarize with other types before making sweeping arguments like that.
That is false. Though there is some distrust in many parts of the world, the overall consensus is that the result of the vote was at least close to the real vote. Even in the USA after the recent election, many focused on accusations of fraud about voting machines (the infamous comments about "Hugo Chavez's machines").
I do agree that it's not a 100%/0% thing in practice - some people will always choose to trust or mistrust the government regardless of other facts; and some people know or are convinced by facts that others don't believe or don't have access to to trust or mistrust.
However, I would say the right response to pure electronic voting would actually be 0%. It's actually out of gullibility and misunderstanding that people put any trust in pure electronic voting *, when in fact it can be attacked in ways that not even the best expert in the world would ever notice, and this can be done by sophisticated out of state attackers (such as the USA or Chinese spy agencies). In such a high-stakes environment, you can't trust the CPU, you can't trust the RAM, you can't trust the USB controller, you can't trust the cables - everything could have been rigged to perform different computations than what was apparently programmed, and this would be often be impossible to prove.
* with the possible exception of electronic voting systems that make everyone's vote public, with obvious downsides. Though even there, I have some reservations - if I claim I voted differently than what the public ledger shows, what happens next?