4 ms·

I think that stamp and paper ballots are actually hampering the democratic process. There are many downsides of physical ballots: the need to physically be at o

I think that stamp and paper ballots are actually hampering the democratic process. There are many downsides of physical ballots: the need to physically be at one location, having to set aside a day to vote, lack of interest for younger demographics... all of these could go away with a good electronic ballot. The more people can vote, the better the democratic process will be. Making it easier for _everyone_ to vote should be a priority.

jltsiren 2y ago
> having to set aside a day to vote That only happens if the people in charge of the elections are enemies of democracy. It also means that the results are being manipulated and not particularly legitimate. The election day is obviously a public holiday. There are plenty of polling locations, so you never have to go far to vote, unless you live in a particularly remote rural area. And because there are enough polling locations, you should not have to stand in line for more than a couple of minutes.
- mariusor 2y ago
  I don't know where you're voting from, but most of my adult life I had long queues to wait in - granted I was an expat crowding an embassy's corridor - and even if I don't have to work that day, I can think of better things that I could do with my time than that. And it's not all about me or you, it's about all the people that do have to take a day off even if it's a holiday, and the people that don't live next to a polling location, and about the people that are on vacation and need to vote in a train station or air port. There are always people inconvenienced by the act of physically going to a ballot station. Electronic voting would help them.
  - jltsiren 2y ago
    I'm from Finland. I've never had to wait more than a couple of minutes to vote within the country. Once I had to wait for maybe 5 minutes in an embassy, but the other times I went to an embassy there was nobody except me. There are also a few early voting days to give people more chances to vote if the actual voting day is too inconvenient. As far as I understand, online voting has been shown to have minimal to no effect on voter turnout. Most of the time, people don't skip voting because it's too inconvenient but because they are not interested or they forgot.
baobabKoodaa 2y ago
Convenience over security. I don't like that. The #1 goal of a voting system should be to prevent a hostile state from secretly hijacking your elections. How convenient voting is can make a difference between 57% voter turnout versus 62% voter turnout. That's largely irrelevant.
- mariusor 2y ago
  I think you are severely overestimating the turnover for ballots. Yes, presidential elections might get ~50%, but anything else does not. The capability of having ballots cast from your own device would allow for more in depth participation into issues which currently are mostly ignored: local politics and even exercising the democratic process at national legislature level. When everyone can vote easily, they hardly need a bunch of corrupt old men in parliament to vote for them.
  - baobabKoodaa 2y ago
    My point is that a small bump in voter turnout is not worth sacrificing the integrity of the voting scheme. That point applies just as well with a 50% turnout as it does with a 30% turnout. For example, a bump from 30% to 35% is largely irrelevant. If everyone can conveniently vote and then no-one's votes are counted because Putin makes up tally numbers, that sucks.

jltsiren 2y ago

> having to set aside a day to vote That only happens if the people in charge of the elections are enemies of democracy. It also means that the results are being manipulated and not particularly legitimate. The election day is obviously a public holiday. There are plenty of polling locations, so you never have to go far to vote, unless you live in a particularly remote rural area. And because there are enough polling locations, you should not have to stand in line for more than a couple of minutes.

mariusor 2y ago
I don't know where you're voting from, but most of my adult life I had long queues to wait in - granted I was an expat crowding an embassy's corridor - and even if I don't have to work that day, I can think of better things that I could do with my time than that. And it's not all about me or you, it's about all the people that do have to take a day off even if it's a holiday, and the people that don't live next to a polling location, and about the people that are on vacation and need to vote in a train station or air port. There are always people inconvenienced by the act of physically going to a ballot station. Electronic voting would help them.
- jltsiren 2y ago
  I'm from Finland. I've never had to wait more than a couple of minutes to vote within the country. Once I had to wait for maybe 5 minutes in an embassy, but the other times I went to an embassy there was nobody except me. There are also a few early voting days to give people more chances to vote if the actual voting day is too inconvenient. As far as I understand, online voting has been shown to have minimal to no effect on voter turnout. Most of the time, people don't skip voting because it's too inconvenient but because they are not interested or they forgot.

baobabKoodaa 2y ago

Convenience over security. I don't like that. The #1 goal of a voting system should be to prevent a hostile state from secretly hijacking your elections. How convenient voting is can make a difference between 57% voter turnout versus 62% voter turnout. That's largely irrelevant.

mariusor 2y ago
I think you are severely overestimating the turnover for ballots. Yes, presidential elections might get ~50%, but anything else does not. The capability of having ballots cast from your own device would allow for more in depth participation into issues which currently are mostly ignored: local politics and even exercising the democratic process at national legislature level. When everyone can vote easily, they hardly need a bunch of corrupt old men in parliament to vote for them.
- baobabKoodaa 2y ago
  My point is that a small bump in voter turnout is not worth sacrificing the integrity of the voting scheme. That point applies just as well with a 50% turnout as it does with a 30% turnout. For example, a bump from 30% to 35% is largely irrelevant. If everyone can conveniently vote and then no-one's votes are counted because Putin makes up tally numbers, that sucks.