You just re-iterated what I said.
It seems like you are branching off onto tangents, or trying to solve different problems.
The point I am making is that verifying voter eligibility, recording votes and tallying votes can be done with a system like the financial system. I use the financial system as an example because it has physical locations (ATMs) that are analogous to a voting booth, and they have virtual locations (bank web sites) that are analogous with online voting. The plumbing is already there, and people trust it.
If a vote needs to be truly verified, it cannot be anonymous. If the validity of the vote is questioned, at some point, the person who cast the ballot has to stand up and affirm their choice. If they are not willing to do that, then the problem cannot be solved. The same is true with the current system. As long as people are unwilling to be held accountable for their choice of government, they will continue to get the government that cowards deserve.
I have no problem telling people how I voted and why I voted that way. One of the corner stones of democracy is open dialogue. What we have in America are a bunch of special interest groups using the government as a proxy to implement their need to control others. (See: gay marriage, abortion, the drug war and a whole laundry list of other wedge issues that all come down to one group of people trying to make it difficult for another group of people to do what they want to do.)
With regards to the subject of verifying online votes, the challenge is not just a challenge with online voting. The challenge is inherent in any anonymous system. A person cannot be both anonymous and also verifiable.