This is survivorship bias. Instead:

1. Assume that there are enough high-powered actors to want to rig an election

2. Note that confirmed case of a rigged election happens through paper absentee ballots

3. Note that there are very few known cases of a rigged election happening through electronic voting machines.

4. One probable conclusion is that election rigging is possible and undetectable through electronic voting machines.

Is it really ironic when pretty much all voting is done with paper? Of course the rigged voting would have been through paper ballots when that is what we use.

It’s ironic when I’m responding to someone framing the use of paper ballots as a security feature, yes.

And it was detected.

That's a big part of the advantage of paper ballots. The cost of subversion is high because more people need to be in on any conspiracy to subvert the system. More conspirators means more and more incentive to defect against co-conspirators.

Electronic systems do not scale subversion cost with electorate size. But they do scale the payoff of subversion.

As opposed to many potential others which were electronic and not confirmed/confirmable? Gimme the paper absentee ballot any day.