> In fact, online voting is such a dangerous idea that computer scientists and security experts are nearly unanimous in opposition to it.
Stopped reading.
Online voting is not just about electing presidents.
If you can poll the people easily, you have a democracy where people directly chose, instead of having a mafious bunch in a grand building making what corporations want the law, ahem I meant doing what is good for you.
Nobody will take your comment seriously if you proudly announce that you didn't read the article.
Why not just think "hmm, I wish the title was a little more specific" and then keep reading with the understanding that this particular article is about elections?
Do you really think it would be better if anyone could decide about anything, even without having proper knowledge of the issue ?
The idea of "representative" democracy (opposed to "direct") is that you elect someone more or less aligned to your ideas, which has the time and competence to make the best decisions. It's far from a perfect system, but let's not delude ourselves about the alternative.
In practice, every decision has its side effects, and law in most cases is the result of compromise.
I can't think of a worse system where your average Joe can vote about things like taxes, gun control, minimum wage, immigration, national security, not having the slightest idea of how his decisions will affect the whole picture.
And I hear your argument, it was my first reaction as well when the thought occurred.
However, while the "average Joe" may suck at understanding online privacy issues, he may be great at accounting/farming/teaching/what-have-you whereas you suck at that. The thing is, your average Joe is more likely to listen for advice than your congressman. And he's good at something else than congressing, something practical that gets voted upon.
It would need adjustments, it would require recluse intellectuals to care for and enlighten their neighbours, but it would give me hope in the system.
Representatives made a lot of sense when the fastest mode of transit was by horse and buggy, and it took weeks to get a letter from Atlanta to Philadelphia. They make very little sense in an instant and digital age.
Internet 1.0 may not be built for online voting, but eventually some sort of internet with a ubiquitous online ID system will be implemented.
The internet is perfectly fit for online voting, except for this "you can prove how you voted" problem.
Problem is, voting requires that you must not be able to prove how you voted, and that you are certain that your voting was counted correctly. Those two requirements are at odds, what makes all voting systems insecure to some extent - yes, even paper.
Now, vote buying is something that can be dealt with on the real world. Any systemic buying will leave traces. I do think the flaw should be on it, instead of the correctness of the result. Paper, by the way is flawed on both, but lives traces on both, that the winners never follow...
It doesn't work because the public is uniformed on 99.99% of issues. And most don't have the patience to listen to the long debates and do the research on every single issue.
If shitty TV significantly influence major elections, imagine how bad it would be if we were a direct democracy.
> If you can poll the people easily, you have a democracy where people directly chose, instead of having a mafious bunch in a grand building making what corporations want the law, ahem I meant doing what is good for you.
Well, look at Germany. Merkel always does what the majority of people said they want in polls, because she wants to keep having her power (she’s running for her 4th term).
And yet, the results aren’t ideal either.
(Some call her "the walking infratest-dimap poll".)
Stopped reading.
Online voting is not just about electing presidents.
If you can poll the people easily, you have a democracy where people directly chose, instead of having a mafious bunch in a grand building making what corporations want the law, ahem I meant doing what is good for you.