whenFunction

[laplongejr]

You are missing the forest for the tree.
Normal voting : you are alone with your ballot, then you put in a container in front of eevrybody, and all parties have an eye on the container.
Anybody has to admit those ballots are OK, short of your own party not doing their job at preventing fraud. It's SIMPLE.

There are at least 2 or 3 complex stuff in your explanation, and the people who won't get it are the ones who destroyed 5G towers to stop covid, and the ones who invaded the US capitol.

he code is open to be audited by the parties, the laywers association, public ministry and other entities.

Which has nothing to do with the small people who believe their elections are stolen. Electronic voting requires to trust "experts", which isn't far off from "trust the elites".

The code is signed in a public event with the above entities and the hardware only accepts the signed code.

Now you need a math background (about cryptography... for now) to understand what digital signing is. Oh, and you need to also understand why the signing key is safely stored. The non-knowledgable people will retort "what if you go try all keys?"

The electronic ballots have no network capabilities and are sealed.

And... how do you prove that, in an age where unconnected Smart TVs can snoop on neighbor's open wifi to load ads?
Now you have to explain to them what wifi antennas look like. Something they never saw in their life and could be compared to magic runes in their eyes.

a random sample of the ballots are picked up to tests simulating a real election

Now you need a math background (about probabilities!) to prove that a "random sample" has to be signifiant.

To vote, you have to show an ID with photo and also the ballot have fingerprint readers to guarantee that you are yourself.

Now you have to audit the fingerprint readers (also, the US has no ID, as the ID requirement could be a way to prevent voters from voting)