Massachusetts uses hand-marked printed paper forms that are fed into an optical-scanner, with the paper dropping into a lockbox for auditability. The paper is the vote, the scanner just allows you to count faster.

If you're blind or otherwise need assistance marking your form, you can bring along a person of your choosing or you can ask for two officials to help you out.

If you need accessibility and online voting, you're hosed: there's a system and it sucks.

Overall, there's room for improvement but it's better than all of the electronic-first systems.

For anyone who might need to know: in the US you have an affirmative right under federal law to have someone of your choosing (although IIRC you may not choose your boss/employer) accompany you into the voting booth in order to assist you in casting your ballot. And assistance isn’t limited to people who are blind or have a disability that prevents them from being able to mark a ballot. If you struggle to read or if you struggle to understand how to fill out the ballot you have a right to get assistance.

Minnesota uses the scanning ballots too.

Very handy, ballots are tied to each machine for random validation and etc.

I like that system, best of both worlds.

Here we have pen and paper and scanners. To vote you fill in the ballot with pen then stick it in the scanner on way out.

As long as they aren't stuffing more ballots or modifying existing ones it should be easy to do a recount at any time.

Stuffing should be hard: you get checked off (name and address) when you receive your ballot, and again when you deposit your ballot. Vote totals need to match in both those places and the ballot box.

I think it's not just techno-optimism. Profit motivated media wants faster results to keep people excited on the edge of their seat, eyeballs glued to the advertisements.

Anything less than an open source machine with a cryptographically secured, auditable trail from my vote to the final tally is 100% untrustworthy.

There is no reason for an American citizen today to trust the security of pen and paper elections. There never was, but now we have digital tooling.

The best of both worlds is hand-marked paper ballots that are then counted by machine.

There's no reason to need the "best of both worlds." People will doubt the validity of the electronic count anyway, you might as well skip that step and go straight to a hand count.

The more counts the better, let a machine count first to give quick results, but use multiple machines and software solutions, kept fully airgaped. Then count by hand.

A tiny horror story from the last Norwegian election was when some results were delayed due to problems with a scanner. The news story about that machine mentioned that the machine was connected to the internet (shudder), and ran Win XP (facepalm).

The internet should only be used for reporting preliminary numbers, and the counting machines should not be talking directly to the net at all.