Great, ZKProofs present the possibility for everyone to do better than that with much less work.

Less work isn't the optimisation goal, though. Reliability, trust, verifiability, secret ballot, etc. is what it is about. If things can be made more efficient without sacrificing the primary goals ok, but if I as a citizen can't verify the results anymore (by watching the count etc.) the purpose isn't met.

It seems like you don’t and don’t care to, understand.

With paper voting you can see that there are real people casting votes. With electronic voting it is trivial to add fictious voters and vote for them, especially in countries where voter lists are not published.

Tell that to the people who now, instead of just going to a polling place and placing a paper on an envelope, have to download and store digital certificates, possibly download and install new programs and deal with the troubles of all that, just so "verifying votes" is slightly easier for the minority of people with the knowledge of the system and ZK proofs.

Also, you're assuming the system is perfectly implemented. In reality, such a system will be complex, will have many more pieces than the ZK system itself (and those pieces will have vulnerabilities), and will require users to do more which will also be prone to errors and vulnerabilities.

I don't understand the insistence on electronic voting for elections. It's less transparent to laypeople, offers small benefits and adds significant complexity both in the implementation and use.

Many in the US think that "they" are lying to us about basic physics so do you think they will accept those proofs?

Paper ballots requiring a lot of work is the whole point. This makes tampering at scale a lot more difficult and a lot easier to detect.