Hard disagree. The world is complex enough that every person in the world relies on the words of "spooky experts telling [them] what to believe".
Even outside of that, elections require trust in the process. Already, with a "simple" system in place, we have to trust that no one is committing fraud, that votes aren't being surreptitiously added or thrown out, etc. E-voting doesn't fundamentally change the trust dynamics at all: people ultimately need to believe that the people in charge of the process aren't up to any funny business or bad at their jobs.
This argument gets used a lot to argue in favor of first past the post. Explaining a Borda count or single non-transferable vote is harder than explaining: most votes = win. But I think it ultimately comes down to trust: if the people voting trust the people involved with the process (even if they don't understand the nitty-gritty details) they will accept the results of an election.
Even outside of that, elections require trust in the process. Already, with a "simple" system in place, we have to trust that no one is committing fraud, that votes aren't being surreptitiously added or thrown out, etc. E-voting doesn't fundamentally change the trust dynamics at all: people ultimately need to believe that the people in charge of the process aren't up to any funny business or bad at their jobs.
This argument gets used a lot to argue in favor of first past the post. Explaining a Borda count or single non-transferable vote is harder than explaining: most votes = win. But I think it ultimately comes down to trust: if the people voting trust the people involved with the process (even if they don't understand the nitty-gritty details) they will accept the results of an election.