Which is precisely what Trump did in 2020.
I doubt people made up their minds on whether the 2020 vote was sound based on the mechanics of how the votes were counted. The counting procedure with it's interlocking checks is rather complex, and differs between states. They made up their minds based on what they trusted more - the Trump version of the facts or the testimonies of the people counting the votes and those administering it.
It will be exactly the same with computerised voting. Ideally the software will be open source with reproducible builds. Just as with the present voting system most won't be able the check the actual mechanics themselves, but they likely know someone who knows someone who knows someone who can.
By the by, it wasn't done that way with computerised voting and probably still isn't in many places. I vaguely recall the story of a voting machine breaking down, a technician waving his magic wand over it after voting had closed, and a whole pile of votes fell out. It made the people in charge of the voting process distinctly uncomfortable.
Exactly, so the rest of your criticism isn't nearly as strong, if it applies to all means of voting.
For a high stakes election I would take the most trustworthy system. So give me an argument why I should invest money into building a less trustworthy one?
Because it I get results faster? I don't care about speed, high stakes elections are rare enough for that not to matter.
Because it is more efficient? I don't care about efficiency, I want the result to be accurate and the process to be understandable by the stupid bloke in the pub with whom I have to discuss the result.
There is literally no reason why this should be replaced by a digital system other than it makes us needs feel special.
My point was narrowly that most of the argument made in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41156898 applies to paper voting as well.
For what it's worth, I prefer paper ballots, but I don't think that makes all arguments for them automatically valid.