3 ms·

The article is just mind-bogglingly silly: The author quotes a number of experts, explaining why it is a really bad idea and why it would compromise the integri

The article is just mind-bogglingly silly: The author quotes a number of experts, explaining why it is a really bad idea and why it would compromise the integrity of the election. Then he goes and, around those quotes, puts some fluff where he suggests we should do it anyway, cause he'd find it convenient to vote on his smartphone. Here's a basic check for the author of the article: If you want to demonstrate how online voting is the future, but you can't find any experts supporting your point of view, and don't have anything refuting their serious arguments against it, maybe it just isn't such a good idea after all.

001sky 14y ago
The issue is the fraud cannot be undone. Unlike your IRS taxes online, there is no IRS to audit trail the vote. And even if there were (cost/privacy logistics aside), the harm is irreprable. If the wrong guy is given power for 2-3 years, its too late to then switch over (justice delayed=justice denied). That is the nutshel of why this "obvious" idea is fatally flawed, IMHO. You are concentrating political power in a black-box not subject to checks/balances, etc. Odd, but paper ballots are the simpler/smarter choice. We just need to lose the clowns administering the elections. Perhaps this should be handed off to a the judiciary or something? Dunno. A good Compromise seems to be (1) national holiday to vote (to increase turnout); (2) IDs (to maintain semblance of legitimacy); (3) simple paper ballot (secure, private, verifiable); (4) computerized registration (to ensure any problems sorted out in advance re(#2).