Not really. If done properly they would allow faster and cheaper vote counting, a more secure audit trail and the ability for voters to verify that their vote was recorded properly.
But they do seem to be one of those things where the government is happy to just hand out bags of money to rubbish vendors and then wonder why it doesn't work. Reminds me of the NHS digitisation fiasco.
> cheaper
You realize we get to use volunteer labor here.
> more audit
That's broadly dissented unless you presume a given-by-god form of "done properly" and no-true-scotsman your way out of any constructive discussion.
> ability for voters to verify their vote
ALSO broadly dissented or at best extremely nontrivial. Blinded cryptographic operations are the territory you're talking about if you want to be in the ballpark of correct, and while the theory exists, the practice is again... not a given. I'm not even sure the theory is fully available for this domain.
Remember, one of the core concepts in a functional democracy is a secret ballot. This is essential to avoiding Some Very Nice People hovering just outside the polling place to make sure everyone in the area voted "correctly".
If you can prove who you voted for you can collect a payment for voting a particular way. I can't believe people keep advocating for "proof" systems without recognizing this fatal flaw.
But it is pretty easy to have a system that lets you verify to yourself that your vote was recorded correctly.
No I am not. It is simple really - when you vote you get some kind of a receipt with a vote ID on it. And on the screen it tells you an easy-to-remember number (for example 0-9). When you want to verify your vote you go online and check that the verification digit matches.
You still can't prove to anyone else how you voted (unless you take a photo, but that is true already and is a reason taking photos is banned).