A government that can balance what to do internally and can carefully choose their contractors, all the while pushing towards openness, is a dream come true.
E-voting was a poorly implemented transparency process to check a not totally terrible (and also, not correct) implementation of a pretty good design. Lessons were learned on the transparency side, and they are on HackerOne now, doing things approximately right. Security is hard and they will probably fail again, but they are failing according to industry standards now, at least. (I was a reviewer of the original system.)
e-ID was rejected by the voters as a gift of a service that should have been in government control to private industry for them to make profit on it. There was nothing technically terrible about the design for outsourcing eIDs to private industry, it was just a concept the voters found unacceptable. (I voted no along with a majority of my fellow citizens.)
I'm quite thankful for Die Republik (slightly leftist daily internet "paper", which is ad free and subscription only) because I think they were quite instrumental in uncovering some of the shenanigans being pulled by those companies.
This is the fundamental flaw of any e-voting system. Even if you manage to get it secure, how do you transparently proof this to everyone, including those who can't grok cryptography. What about those who don't care and just want to call the election stolen?
It is hard enough to convince them with paper ballots, but these are at least physical and they cannot come out of nowhere.
Even those who can grok cryptography can't check that the implementation matches the specification.
No human being can review the complete software running on a computer. Even less a distributed system.
But most human beings can understand the paper ballot system.