This article was originally published on Crafting Your Home. A human contributor also wrote and edited the post.
Elon Musk has spent much of his career arguing that technology can solve difficult problems. On voting, however, he is making the opposite pitch. The billionaire wants American elections to lean on paper, face-to-face participation, and identification rather than placing greater trust in computers.
“The last thing we want is electronic voting machines,” Musk said during his 2024 political appearances in Pennsylvania. “We want paper ballots, in-person, with ID.” In the same discussion, he warned that increasingly capable artificial intelligence could become skilled at attacking computers, adding that he normally favors technology but does not believe machines should control voting.
The statement is sharp, memorable, and almost tailor-made for the internet. It also compresses three complicated policy fights into one sentence: how ballots should be marked, how votes should be counted, and what voters should be required to show before receiving a ballot.
Musk’s Warning Is Broader Than the System America Actually Uses
When many people hear “electronic voting machine,” they picture a touchscreen silently storing votes inside a computer. Some jurisdictions still use direct recording electronic systems, but that is no longer the dominant American model. The U.S. Election Assistance Commission says more than 98 percent of jurisdictions already use systems that create a paper record of every vote.
That distinction matters because a paper ballot and a machine-counted ballot are not opposites. A voter may fill in circles on a physical sheet, then feed that ballot into an optical scanner. The scanner produces a fast preliminary tally, while the original paper remains available for audits, recounts, and legal review.
Verified Voting’s 2026 equipment data show that 69.5 percent of registered voters live in jurisdictions where hand-marked paper ballots are the main system for most voters. Another 26.5 percent live in places using ballot marking devices for all voters, which electronically display choices but produce a human-readable paper ballot. Only 3.9 percent are in jurisdictions using direct recording electronic machines as the principal system for all voters, and some of those machines also produce voter-verified paper trails.
Musk’s concern about software is not invented out of thin air. Election security specialists have long favored paper records because software can contain flaws, and because a physical record gives officials evidence that can be checked independently. However, a warning about possible vulnerabilities is not proof that voting machines altered an election, and Musk did not present verified evidence of such manipulation in the quoted remarks.
Steve Jurvetson, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Paper Has Powerful Allies, but Hand Counting Is Not a Magic Wand
On the core question of paper records, Musk is closer to the election security mainstream than his sweeping language may suggest. In May 2025, the bipartisan Election Assistance Commission unanimously backed paper-based, auditable, and software-independent voting systems. Its commissioners said a paper trail strengthens verification, auditing and voter confidence while preserving accessible voting options for people with disabilities.
The harder question is whether machines should be removed from counting altogether. Hand counts may sound simple, but nationwide federal elections contain many contests on long ballots. Human beings can misread marks, transpose numbers, lose concentration, and disagree over voter intent.
Machines can count quickly and consistently, while audits using the physical ballots can test whether the machine’s tally is correct. That approach treats technology as a tool rather than the final authority.
A 2026 review by the Bipartisan Policy Center says every state tests voting equipment before elections and conducts some form of post-election audit. Federal law also requires election materials from federal contests to be retained for 22 months, allowing ballots and related records to remain available for investigations, audits or recounts.
Paper brings its own responsibilities. Ballots must be printed accurately, stored securely, transported under documented procedures, and protected from damage or unauthorized access. Technology does not disappear either, because voter registration databases, ballot design systems, scanners and reporting networks remain part of modern election administration.
Voter ID and In-Person Voting Are the Real Political Fault Lines
Musk’s demand for identification enters a debate that already differs dramatically from state to state. As of April 2026, 36 states request or require some form of identification at polling places. The other 14 states and Washington, D.C., verify identity through other methods, often by comparing a voter’s signature or personal information with registration records.
Supporters argue that identification requirements discourage impersonation and strengthen public confidence. Opponents answer that in-person impersonation is rare, and that strict rules can burden eligible citizens who lack acceptable documents, transportation, or easy access to issuing offices. The argument is therefore not simply security versus no security. It is about which safeguards provide meaningful protection without preventing qualified voters from participating.
The in-person-only portion of Musk’s formula is even more restrictive. Military members, citizens overseas, people with disabilities, older voters, rural residents and workers with inflexible schedules may depend on absentee or mail voting.
Election officials use signature comparisons, identifying information, ballot tracking, correction procedures, and chain-of-custody rules to validate mailed ballots. The precise safeguards differ by state, but voting by mail does not mean a ballot is automatically accepted without verification.
There is also a constitutional limit to how quickly one national rule could replace the existing patchwork. State legislatures generally determine the times, places, and manner of congressional elections, while Congress may alter those regulations through legislation. Musk’s preferred system would therefore require state action, federal legislation or both, not merely a viral post or a presidential instruction.
Musk has succeeded in putting a complicated argument into a sentence almost anyone can repeat. Paper records enjoy broad support; voter ID remains politically divisive, and eliminating machines would create major logistical and accessibility questions.
The serious debate is not whether elections should use paper or technology. It is how to combine both so results can be counted efficiently, audited independently, and trusted even by voters whose preferred candidates lose.
If you like what you just read, then subscribe to our newsletter and follow us on social media.
