It's about preventing easy scaling of voting fraud. To corrupt vote counting at multiple precincts when using a paper-based, manual counting system, requires the bribing of a lot of people in different locations, and is hard to keep quiet and go unnoticed the larger it gets. Using a digital voting system, if the software or firmware of any part of the voting process is compromisable, likely no-one will be able to tell, any many precincts affected.

I would guess that the writer started with a concept along to lines of "with electronic voting systems [that are connected to an external network], it is impossible to physically prevent manipulation and maintain control", which is true. I would guess that (s)he then allowed the hyperbolic urge to switched the formulation to "physically impossible." This is trivially false in a literal sense, an appeal to a qualitative notion of "impossible", which brings the argument into a context that is very familiar to Scotsmen and their imitators.

Within this context, there is indeed a double standard, as indeed it is no more possible to prevent a true Scotsman from committing electoral fraud with paper than to confound him with electrons. However, a claim may be misleading, unfair, or erroneous irrespective of whether it involves a double standard.

I believe that you make an error in seeking relief from the double standard. Essentially you are establishing that if we are to accept the first patently false assertion, we must equally accept the second (which is true)... and then agreeing to accept both.

So we are already quite far into the woods when we come to my reason for responding to you.

What you have presented is an example of the 'appeal to link' fallacy. You have suggested (and believed, probably) that there are countless examples of electoral fraud, and offered a link.

However, the document you have linked does not present or even suggest that there are countless examples of electoral fraud. It is a wikipedia article that enumerates specific methods of electoral fraud, loosely defined.

Furthermore, the document implicitly assumes the truth of the original assertion that is the subject of debate, namely that there are categories of fraud to which electronic voting systems are uniquely susceptible.

I was tempted to conclude that "this is why we can't have nice things", but the truth is that we could have much nicer things if we took a moment to step back and examine what we are discussing just a little more carefully.