My problem with "e-voting" has never been the security aspect, but how easy it would be to manipulate. Given how even some elections can be, just getting that last 1% of votes (I know the American system is somewhat different, as you need mandates, not votes, but I'm talking generally) could tip it in your direction. With traditional voting, a person usually has to meet, in person, to vote. With "e-voting" you could easily forge tons of votes, even with actual people, just by social engineering and forging of documents.
Arguably having a "correct" winner matters the least in tight elections. If the margin of victory is as-low as 1% then it hardly matters which candidate wins - that election is already subject to the influence of weather, chance, accident and human counting error.
There really is no supernatural magic to democracy that invests within the winner a moral or judgemental superiority. The ceremony and culture we surround democracy with can create that illusion. In an almost holy way, we anoint the winner and assign to them a minor god-like status. Their choice is said to reflect the will of the people, to be the personification of a mandate. But rationally, we should realise that a candidate who wins by 1% is about as likely to lose if the election was run the next day.
What's scary about e-voting is that democracy is really only very good at preventing complete tyranny. Potential tyrants are unlikely to gain enough votes. But with e-voting, errors of 50% are as easy and as likely as errors of 1%.
one problem is that when last-lousy-point fraud is used to tip a tight election one way rather than the other, the election has now provably gone to the party that was willing to win it by unethical means.
