So are your local ATMs, yet the dipsticks trust them.
How often did we hear the moonbat libs speak glowingly of ATMs versus punch card technology in 2000?
The difference is that the manufacturers of ATMs and associated equipment are responsible to the banks for any problems that may arise. They, and the banks, have a very strong financial incentive to ensure that their sytems are secure and reliable. Plus, of course, if something does go wrong the bank will (eventually) take care of it for you. Is any of this true of voting machines?
You make an interesting point about the ATMS. They have side-mounted switches rather than touchscreens in the newer ones, and they all have a printed receipt system, and they all function with a separate independently-auditable permanent record system consisting of checks, currency, deposit slips, and such.
The 'voting' systems are vastly inferior to the ATMs.
Even if an ATM manufacturer wanted to make a dishonest ATM, there wouldn't be a whole lot it could do. If the ATM was programmed to respond to a $20 withdrawal request by withdrawing $100 and paying out $20 (dispensing the other $80 when the programmer punched in a secret code) it wouldn't take very long for people to realize what was up. When someone shows up at the bank with a receipt that says they withdrew $20 and a bank statement that says they withdrew $100, the fraud will be discovered.
Many existing voting machine designs have zero protection against insider fraud. To be sure, it's impossible to provide much protection if all insiders are dishonest, but a well-designed system can be constructed so that even one honest person will provide a substantial check against fraud. Unfortunately, none of the major vendors seem interested in doing so.