Electronic minimizes stress, saves time, easy to monitor and prevent manipulations.

Definitely EVM, because it saves time and paper, and avoid chances of electoral malpractices.

Please also see the following link.

https://www.quora.com/Which-is-better-an-EVM-or-a-paper-ballot

Both electronic voting systems and manual balloting have its pros and cons.

Manual balloting if conducted nicely (open voting system) is preferable to electronic voting in terms of transparency. However, it may require more time, stress and resources.

manual balloting

Electronic voting - reduce time, but problem with reliability. Manual voting - slow speed, high reliability. Maybe India's experience using this EVM can be used to consider this method.

Counting a paper ballot using an electronic tabulating machine, such as an optical scan unit is best for counting ballots and maintaining a paper record for backup verification, in my experience in Alaska.

If the question is about manipulation of results, then one can say both are susceptible to manipulation. With regards to the EVS, once a party gets a biased and corrupted IT professional, it even makes the work much more easier and susceptible to manipulation of results as compared to the manual voting.

The way forward should thus be the need to have free and fair as well as unbiased professionals managing elections irrespective of it being electronic of manual.

Both have their shortfalls; they can easily be doctored. If there is an independent electoral body, and sophisticated firewalls, the electronic system would guarantee that results are collated and released on time. Concerning accuracy and legitimacy, it might also be the best.

In a country like mine, being at home and watching TV in the election day is the best...

Electronic is better as it saves time

In my point of view, I think electronic voting is much more better as it may saves time

I believe in that, electronic voting system is more useful because of avoid time loss. In this way, the perception of the price on the voter side can be more pronounced and the perceived value of the voter can be increased. The parties, which are the premise of this new practice, can increase brand awareness in the electorate.

For developed countries with proven transparency record: E-Voting

For developing or 3rd word countries with questionable transparency record: Manual Voting

only manual voting is democratic mode

Electronic voting is quick and is not good for African countries because they cannot manufacture and maintain properly the associated equipment. Manual voting is time consuming. But here in 3rd world, all of them have the same effect, they give the results the leading people want.

In Brazil we have a lot of experience with the full electronic vote. Today, there is a public debate about the electronic vote.

At the vote moment, electronic vote with a numeric keyboard is easier than the written vote. To "open list" electoral systems, print the name or the number of the candidate in the vote ballot is impossible. So, in this case, electronic vote help to do not cancel the vote ballot due to miswritten.

Electronic vote counting and aggregation is faster than manual or mechanic (optic) vote counting. And the process of counting vote is more secure in relation to in loco corruption. But the process is more obscure to the public. To increase the trust in the process, the confidence in the administration body of de electoral process in full electronic vote is critical. In Brazil, we have a national, permanent, well-funded and very expensive bureaucratic agency to manage the elections.

A fast answer: full electronic vote is better to manual balloting when the electoral system make difficult to vote and to count the votes; and when there is technological, financial, and political possibility to assure the legitimacy of the electoral process.