5 ms·

Because it would increase turnout! I'm against digital voting systems for security reasons too, but hypothetically if that problem were solved, the increased t

Because it would increase turnout! I'm against digital voting systems for security reasons too, but hypothetically if that problem were solved, the increased turnout would be a good thing.

JulianMorrison 7y ago
Would it? The groups that have trouble turning out - because they're poor, working two jobs, got no car, got poor public transport because they live in the bad side of town, they speak a minority language - those are the same groups that are likely to find digital stuff inaccessible.
- lallysingh 7y ago
  Will they find a basic (/old/cheap) smartphone more inaccessible than voting in person? A smartphone is pretty necessary these days, and basic ones are often free on cheap plans.
- buttersbrian 7y ago
  If you could vote through any 'device', the transportation, time, and money (depending on how the device aspect works) arguments would largely be moot. Define minority language people? Spanish (primary) speakers in the US are more tech savvy than maybe we're giving them credit for.
- quicklime 7y ago
  I don't think it would solve the problem for everyone in those groups, but it would for some. I'd be very surprised if it didn't move the needle. Also, there's another group that seems to have trouble turning out, and finds digital stuff perfectly accessible: young people.
  - BostonFern 7y ago
    Strengthening voter enfranchisement is a commendable cause, but moving from accessible to effortless in order to cater to people reasonably able but insufficiently motivated is an awful reason to jeopardize the stakes of not just electronic but outright online voting.
    - watwut 7y ago
      Is it jeopardizing voting process if college students wont have unnecessary obstacles to voting? https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/states-make-harder-college-students-vote-69319276 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/states-make-harder...
      - BostonFern 7y ago
        If polling stations are not in fact accessible, then the criticism doesn't apply: strengthening voter enfranchisement is commendable.
    - buttersbrian 7y ago
      Define accessible? If polling stations are closed, strategically, and people cannot afford the time/money to vote, or wait to vote, are they truly accessible? Mail-in is a different situation, so I am not considering this. Otherwise, I agree with much of your thought.
- nogabebop23 7y ago
  It's often targeted at young voters, because they're "tech savy" so we should "speak their language". Despite the vast majority not being poor and having lots of free time they can't be bothered to vote today, why would this change anything?
spritecranberry 7y ago
On the other hand, those people are likely to just vote to steal more of my stuff. I'd like to have every adult in the nation cast a ballot, but they need to quit voting for blatant robbery, first.
beerandt 7y ago
>increased turnout would be a good thing I'm not for disenfranchisement, but I don't automatically buy into this premise. If anything, increased turnout has corresponded to increased partisan rhetoric and fear based motivations to vote. The so-called swing-voters (or swing-participants) are (imho with no proof to back this up) generally the groups that are most likely to be influenced by misleading attack ads, Russian bots, or any other form of social engineering/manipulation. Participation in elections is good, but only if it's for the right reasons... otherwise it becomes like any other targeted meaningless metric. Artificial barriers/inconveniences to voting should be removed, but that doesn't mean it should be completely effortless to vote. Some level of proof-of-effort is not a bad thing, imo.
anon98356 7y ago
I do remember a few years ago reading (I think it was in freakonomics) that this isn't actually a guarantee. Some places that have postal voting as the primary form of voting have actually seen a decrease in participation. After an initial boost based on novelty, it now being easier to do also makes it easier to put off. Having a week or two to fill in and then post the form allows for a lot of "I'll do it tomorrow" until you can't, you missed the cutoff. If it can increase turnout great, but making something easier doesn't inherently mean an uptake in participation. As an extra method on top of existing options it would probably help, but then you lose a lot of the other suggested benefits around faster counting and etc. which require it to be the only form of voting.
- BostonFern 7y ago
  There's a distinction between enfranchisement and motivation. The former is fundamental to democracy, proportional to its health, and in my opinion, a duty. The latter is a cultural and a political challenge. I don't think the two should be equated or conflated.
  - anon98356 7y ago
    Yes there is a distinction between the two, but in this scenario they both needed to be considered. If you are making it more accessible to vote and that leads to a decrease in voter turnout is that a good thing? The claim of the GP was that online voting would increase voter turnout. If you only consider enfranchisement sure it would, you are making it easier to vote. But put in the wider and cultural political context of a given country my argument is that the GP's claim, that more people would vote, isn't guaranteed.

Because it would increase turnout! I'm against digital voting systems for security reasons too, but hypothetically if that problem were solved, the increased turnout would be a good thing.

JulianMorrison 7y ago

Would it? The groups that have trouble turning out - because they're poor, working two jobs, got no car, got poor public transport because they live in the bad side of town, they speak a minority language - those are the same groups that are likely to find digital stuff inaccessible.

lallysingh 7y ago
Will they find a basic (/old/cheap) smartphone more inaccessible than voting in person? A smartphone is pretty necessary these days, and basic ones are often free on cheap plans.
buttersbrian 7y ago
If you could vote through any 'device', the transportation, time, and money (depending on how the device aspect works) arguments would largely be moot. Define minority language people? Spanish (primary) speakers in the US are more tech savvy than maybe we're giving them credit for.
quicklime 7y ago
I don't think it would solve the problem for everyone in those groups, but it would for some. I'd be very surprised if it didn't move the needle. Also, there's another group that seems to have trouble turning out, and finds digital stuff perfectly accessible: young people.
- BostonFern 7y ago
  Strengthening voter enfranchisement is a commendable cause, but moving from accessible to effortless in order to cater to people reasonably able but insufficiently motivated is an awful reason to jeopardize the stakes of not just electronic but outright online voting.
  - watwut 7y ago
    Is it jeopardizing voting process if college students wont have unnecessary obstacles to voting? https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/states-make-harder-college-students-vote-69319276 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/states-make-harder...
    - BostonFern 7y ago
      If polling stations are not in fact accessible, then the criticism doesn't apply: strengthening voter enfranchisement is commendable.
  - buttersbrian 7y ago
    Define accessible? If polling stations are closed, strategically, and people cannot afford the time/money to vote, or wait to vote, are they truly accessible? Mail-in is a different situation, so I am not considering this. Otherwise, I agree with much of your thought.
nogabebop23 7y ago
It's often targeted at young voters, because they're "tech savy" so we should "speak their language". Despite the vast majority not being poor and having lots of free time they can't be bothered to vote today, why would this change anything?

spritecranberry 7y ago

On the other hand, those people are likely to just vote to steal more of my stuff. I'd like to have every adult in the nation cast a ballot, but they need to quit voting for blatant robbery, first.

beerandt 7y ago

>increased turnout would be a good thing I'm not for disenfranchisement, but I don't automatically buy into this premise. If anything, increased turnout has corresponded to increased partisan rhetoric and fear based motivations to vote. The so-called swing-voters (or swing-participants) are (imho with no proof to back this up) generally the groups that are most likely to be influenced by misleading attack ads, Russian bots, or any other form of social engineering/manipulation. Participation in elections is good, but only if it's for the right reasons... otherwise it becomes like any other targeted meaningless metric. Artificial barriers/inconveniences to voting should be removed, but that doesn't mean it should be completely effortless to vote. Some level of proof-of-effort is not a bad thing, imo.

anon98356 7y ago

I do remember a few years ago reading (I think it was in freakonomics) that this isn't actually a guarantee. Some places that have postal voting as the primary form of voting have actually seen a decrease in participation. After an initial boost based on novelty, it now being easier to do also makes it easier to put off. Having a week or two to fill in and then post the form allows for a lot of "I'll do it tomorrow" until you can't, you missed the cutoff. If it can increase turnout great, but making something easier doesn't inherently mean an uptake in participation. As an extra method on top of existing options it would probably help, but then you lose a lot of the other suggested benefits around faster counting and etc. which require it to be the only form of voting.

BostonFern 7y ago
There's a distinction between enfranchisement and motivation. The former is fundamental to democracy, proportional to its health, and in my opinion, a duty. The latter is a cultural and a political challenge. I don't think the two should be equated or conflated.
- anon98356 7y ago
  Yes there is a distinction between the two, but in this scenario they both needed to be considered. If you are making it more accessible to vote and that leads to a decrease in voter turnout is that a good thing? The claim of the GP was that online voting would increase voter turnout. If you only consider enfranchisement sure it would, you are making it easier to vote. But put in the wider and cultural political context of a given country my argument is that the GP's claim, that more people would vote, isn't guaranteed.