I have never understood the fetish for electronic voting; it's both complex and prone to rigging. What's wrong with pencils and paper?? The only good arguments I've heard are:(1) Environmental (no paper...) but that's undermined by the need to use electricity to power the machines, energy inputs to make them etc, greater costs in transporting and maintaining them
(2) Quickness in counting, which can be important in elections involving a lot of people, a volatile political environment, and/or a more complicated electoral system.
There was talk of using electronic machines in Nepal, which would be scary given the bad roads, erratic power supplies etc. They are commonly used in India.
Using them in first-past-the-post local elections in tree-covered New Brunswick makes no sense at all. I think part of the appeal is that voting machines are sexy, and give election authorities something to play with.
A side-effect that's not much discussed is that you need fewer front-line people to run elections (fewer scrutineers, etc), which means fewer opportunities for party volunteers. Given the weak state of parties, any reduction in the ways for activists to be meaningfully involved seems a bad idea for reasons beyond the technology. I'm all in favour of automating tedious jobs, but there are - or were - lots of New Democrats, at least, who enjoyed being part of the usually unexciting rituals and paperwork of election day.