I watched the video. It's a load of crap. I mean, here are his arguments (feel free to tell me if I missed something):
- voting systems inevitably have to be closed source, loaded on easily compromisable USB stick, connected to internet unguarded and sitting that way for years. In what reality is this nihilistic fatalism a reasonable expectation?
- voter has no way of independently verifying that their vote has been processed correctly. First of all, this is simply ignorant as there are many cryptographical schemes that allow verification, but most importantly - how do you know that your vote has been processed correctly in our current system? You don't, there is no way for you to do that.
- US hacking machines are routinely exploited at Defcon. That's right. You know what else is routinely exploited there? Physical safes, which are used for storing you know paper ballots. Also cars. And Air Force has promised to bring a fucking satellite next year. Something having vulnerabilities in the past does not mean it still has them, something having vulnerabilities currently does not mean they are easy to exploit in practice or can't be detected and mitigated, some products in a certain category having vulnerabilities does not mean all products in this category will inevitably have vulnerabilities in the future and we should just give up on ever fixing them.
- trusting a person in a voting booth to vote for you would be ridiculous, but filling a ballot yourself and trusting that it will get counted correctly along the way is somehow self obvious - I guess because in the first case you clearly see that a human is involved in the process and in the second example it sort of feels like the process is finished once you physically put your vote into a box?
- the average voter won't understand checksums. Well, maybe the average voter shouldn't worry about bad bytes in that case? And how come deterministic and auditable cryptography is a problem while demonstrably non-deterministic process of current paper voting (look at how results always differ ever so slightly when votes are recounted) is a non-issue?
- transferring votes over internet is problematic because you can't trust software on either end. Right, because you know (never mind trust) everybody that will handle your vote on the path from voting booth to the whatever-governing-body-is-announcing-results-in-your-country?
- central computer could be manipulating your votes and only a few people will have an opportunity to inspect it. Well, how many voting boxes have you been allowed to inspect in your life? Are you allowed to go to the central location where your votes are aggregated and recount all of them personally? How do you know that officials in your voting location, precinct or at a national level haven't agreed to manipulate the results?
- casting doubts on the election is easy to do with electronic voting and nearly impossible with paper voting. Have you heard this cute story about medical masks becoming a conspiracy and symbol of oppression among certain population in US? Has nothing to do with electrical circuits and everything to do with politics. If a current incumbent happens to lose an election there you can be sure that election results will be called fake, no matter paper or digital.
- malware exists, so voting from personal devices is ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as doing e-commerce or banking? Or in case of Estonia getting pretty much any other official business done, or so I hear.
- a single vulnerability in someones computer can be scaled to millions of computers. Ok, let's say someone is still using Windows XP and got infected with something after downloading GTA from Pirate Bay. How does that affect people voting from their iPhones?
- anecdotes, anecdotes, anecdotes
tl;dr: Stop spreading FUD.