I am copy pasting my article's reply for the sake of debating this.
I, like you, live in a country were barely 50% of the population vote. This is exactly why I think Online voting is good for democracy. Essentially, more people will vote:
I am strongly against the view of the author.
I see that the majority (or a large portion) of voters are fanatics that vote based on affiliation and fanaticism, not policies nor experience.
Ie. The voting numbers are largely biased towards the political fanatic crowd.
I see online voting as a way to increase the number of ordinary people that vote. Getting the voting population to 80%+ or more is good for democracy. I see this as a positive.
Saying Online voting is a danger to democracy is like saying autonomous cars are a danger to safety.
Yes, if the autonomous system doesn't work and is made with loopholes that allow dangerous stuff, it will pose a danger. But if made to work fail-proof, it will be infinitely better.
There's no point in saying something will not work if your only argument is based on the proposition that it's going to be broken before it's even used.
Sure, an unsafe car is not safe. The only way to make it safe is to make sure it's safe.
The only way "democratic" online voting will work is to make sure it's "democratic".
I, like you, live in a country were barely 50% of the population vote. This is exactly why I think Online voting is good for democracy. Essentially, more people will vote:
I am strongly against the view of the author.
I see that the majority (or a large portion) of voters are fanatics that vote based on affiliation and fanaticism, not policies nor experience.
Ie. The voting numbers are largely biased towards the political fanatic crowd.
I see online voting as a way to increase the number of ordinary people that vote. Getting the voting population to 80%+ or more is good for democracy. I see this as a positive.
Saying Online voting is a danger to democracy is like saying autonomous cars are a danger to safety.
Yes, if the autonomous system doesn't work and is made with loopholes that allow dangerous stuff, it will pose a danger. But if made to work fail-proof, it will be infinitely better.
There's no point in saying something will not work if your only argument is based on the proposition that it's going to be broken before it's even used.
Sure, an unsafe car is not safe. The only way to make it safe is to make sure it's safe.
The only way "democratic" online voting will work is to make sure it's "democratic".