I agree with your assessment of electronic voting, but disagree with your assessment of US election issues. For one, I suppose it might be different some places, but my experience with in-person voting in 3 different states over the past few decades doesn't support that view. I'll address some of the points that you bring up.
I've never queued for even as long as 30 minutes, perhaps 10 minutes this year. Here, in Tennessee, we have early in-person voting for a full 2 weeks prior to and including election day, as well as solicited mail-in absentee voting. People in nursing homes vote.
There are laws against preventing workers from going to vote. One cannot be fired for going to vote. Many (most?) states have early in-person voting for days or weeks, so there's no excuse for a worker not to vote. In most cases they can certainly vote even without missing work, but they can otherwise bring suit against the company for preventing them from voting.
ID requirements are not so stringent as you think. A state ID can be obtained for free, otherwise any state-issued ID or a passport can be used. Seriously? Other than illegal residents, who does not have some sort of ID? If by stringent you mean that it hampers illegal residents from voting, then I suppose you are right. But do you know of any nations that do permit foreign nationals to come in and vote?
As for the electoral college, how is it any worse than the selection of the President of the EC, which would be analogous to the US Congress selecting the US President. In fact, one faction at the Philadelphia convention advocated for just that. Another advocated for a popular vote. The popular vote was opposed by small states who feared being bullied by Philadelphia and Boston. So they ended up with a compromise. The President of the EC is not selected by popular vote for the same reason; the German and French candidates would have a distinct advantage.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
