personally, i strongly disagree. i hate to poopoo on the open source parade but while it allows peer review, it also gives direct access to everybody to hunt down where the weak points are. there is not and never will be a perfectly secure system, there are only obfuscation techniques to make it more difficult and they start with not handing foreign nations the source code of our democracy.
Seems like that would just be a matter of non networked machines under physical and digital security. Pretty much the same way, you'd ideally handle paper ballots. There's no way to make a "hack proof" voting machine. Microsoft has proprietary software on a good number of them actively lobbies against open source. (no real shocker there) The problem is we often rely on the company that manufactured the machines to audit them. It centralizes way to much power into the hands of corporations and doesn't allow for 3rd party review after an election.
i view corporations as far more trustworthy than foreign nations. there needs to be better review policies and what-not, but open source? too far, too decentralized for something so important. it'll be a ticking timebomb until someone stuxnets an election.
Basically every security researcher disagrees with you. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/04/schneiers_law.html
A system is not secure just because of a hidden design that keeps the internals away from the public. A design that is open for review can be more secure since its security rests on logic that withstands numerous public attacks.
Definitely some good news. One can only hope one day they'll all be open source.