(In case you're not from the US: our government is largely a representative democracy, not a direct democracy, with a few exceptions, such as California's proposition system.)
I would say that voting machines are also a niche issue: whether that's good or not, IDK, but most candidates (I feel) would rather discuss their positions on more mainstream topics such as gun control issues, gay rights, abortion, economics issues (particularly vague economic issues), whether or not we should build a wall, etc. Technology is a rare issue, and even rarer to see a candidate demonstrate an understanding of the facts in the issue.
I don't know any security professional that would tell you physical access isn't equal to the ability to hack a device.
The reality is subversion of people managing processes is of a higher probability that attacks of the machines themselves. It's also not unique to electronic voting, people are always the weak link in security and will always be the weak link.
Which, sure, is something to think about. But it's not what I think people are imagining when you say "voting machine hacking."