In Russia, there are ballot boxes that automatically count ballots. No fancy technology here - they just scan ballot, detect mark position, and after the end of the election day these ballot boxes just print resulting report.

These ballot boxes are installed on some small percent of polling stations(like 5% or 10% - I don't remember the exact number). But statistical analysis shows that electoral fraud is commited considerably less often on such polling stations. I don't know, whether it is actually more difficult to cheat on such stations(at least there is a physical limitation - you can't put more than one ballot at a time, because it is needed to be scanned, - as opposed to normal ballot box where you can easily put 10-20 ballots at once), or whether they decided to install such automated boxes on polling stations where they had no intention to commit fraud. But my point is: 1) "Paper-voting" is no guarantee of fair elections. 2) Sometimes "hi-tech" may even help you, if you use it properly.

You make a fair point about electronic voting(and I wholeheartedly agree with you), but it looks like you overestimate the reliability of old-fashioned methods.

To summarize, I'm calling you "not-enough-paranoid kook". :)