I'm disappointed that people who should be able to see through the hype, into the actual tech, are falling for the anti-hype in the same reflexive, unthinking manner as those falling for the actual hype.
Having worked for an election services company, it truly irked me every time "blockchain" was mentioned to solve X problems. Unless you're in an untrusted, adversarial context with multiple parties, blockchain gets you nothing over just regular data signing with public-private keys/certs, but the added problems of latency and compute costs.
This is true of most regulatory situations. Blockchain could be something the banks and federal reserve could use for exchanges instead of the existing networks, but that's a very different use case.
The industry was trying very hard to monopolize before antitrust stopped them. The whole entire industry is a threat to democracy and should be made illegal and replaced with auditable paper trails. Or yes, even a blockchain would be safer, but that wouldn't be anonymous.
Another part, do you REALLY expect the govt to give up control over the servers in the case of voting? If a single organization controls the servers, all access to the servers and all of the entries without public access, it doesn't bring anything adventageous.