> Are computerized elections understandable to laypersons?
What do you mean "No"? The ubiquity of cell phones alone makes it self-evident. What YOU mean is not described by your assertion.
> Worse; even if the election was tallied faithfully by a computerized system, a demagogic candidate can whip up fervour and call the election into question.
That's not worse. That's part of the path to acceptance.
> The paper ballot industry doesn't exist.
Tell that to the Lottery machine makers and ticket manufacturers. It's a much stronger lobby than the "e-voting" block (if you can even cobble together such an alliance).
What do you mean "No"? The ubiquity of cell phones alone makes it self-evident. What YOU mean is not described by your assertion.
> Worse; even if the election was tallied faithfully by a computerized system, a demagogic candidate can whip up fervour and call the election into question.
That's not worse. That's part of the path to acceptance.
> The paper ballot industry doesn't exist.
Tell that to the Lottery machine makers and ticket manufacturers. It's a much stronger lobby than the "e-voting" block (if you can even cobble together such an alliance).