Banking is a different matter. It’s backed by insurance. losses are measured in the same units as transactions.
Insurance is possible with the electronic systems that banks use because the losses are promptly detectable and measurable.
With paper ballots, most fraud is literally undetectable.
At most, people find some weird “statistical anomalies,” like wide deviance from exit polls, or reported results that appear at most implausible. You never know; you can never prove anything. Everyone just shrugs and moves on to the next election, where the same thing happens.
The mistake that you and others are making is looking at the security of electronic voting systems in isolation. You aren’t comparing them with paper ballots - which exhibit endemic, intractable, frightening levels of insecurity, and a fundamental reliance on unprovable trust - and asking which is more secure. The answer is blindingly obvious.
The anonymity aspect is one that banking doesn’t have to deal with either.
Are you kidding? Banking depends very heavily on maintaining client confidentiality. Transactions are typically made with strict preservation of anonymity: money flows from account A to account B.
Of course, banks are also auditable, because if fraud happens, regulators need to be able to trace things back to find the evildoers - as opposed to paper voting, where widespread fraud could happen, and everyone just buries their heads in the sand and accepts it.
