A couple things.

1) Not all computer scientist are security experts.

2) The security experts came to the conclusion that hardening the system to the point where you could depend on its integrity (and the system still be widely usable) wasn't feasible.

3) Making one process manual in order to protect the outcome != giving up on technology and becoming a luddite.

Computer scientists and computer security experts are the ones that commonly advise against voting machines and other things like that, pointing out vulnerabilities and the inability to verify them.

Equipment/proces was found vulnerable.

And this is only about aggregating sub-results.

Voting computers for the actual vote ( public ) have been abandonded years ago, again because of vulnerabilities.

This ban was pursued by an old school hacker ( Rob Grongrijp ).

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wij_vertrouwen_stemcomputers_n...

The integrity of the outcome is more important than the means of the process.

When one's only tool is a hammer every "problem" seems like a nail, eh? Some things simply aren't improved by the introduction of computers.

Sure, read this > https://sijmen.ruwhof.net/weblog/1166-how-to-hack-the-upcomi...