A crucial principle which should be applied to #onlinevoting discussions: scrutineering. At present, we can be confident that elections in voting stations with booths are fair and uncorrupted because people of all sorts, with many different interests (laypeople) are *capable* of credibly scrutineering the process. As soon as you go online, credible scrutineers drops to a tiny, specialised sliver of tech experts. Who are, therefore, easy to co-opt/corrupt/bribe/bamboozle. 1/2
In Germany, where they know a bit about how democracy can be corrupted, they have set a very powerful (& sensible) precedent, that electronic & #onlinevoting are *unconstitutional* - that is *because* laypeople (and voters!) cannot scrutineer the process. We need to think about this very carefully, and I think NZ should follow their lead in principle (even without a formal constitution). https://www.dw.com/en/german-court-rules-e-voting-unconstitutional/a-4069101
@vilbi in a proper voting system, trust is achieved not by removing vested interests (which is impossible) but by ensuring a diversity of interests, so no individual person or group needs to be trustworthy for the result of the election to be worthy of trust!
@lightweight it could rise the number of votes, yes. But is voting, like going to a demonstration or attending church not a ritual that shows active participation, interest... So I love the first voters & kids, getting my candies, talk with my neighbours, thanking voters for their participation. Beeing there to aid people to understand the sometimes complex ballot papers. Aktive participating in forming new Representation for the citizens...
Electronic is cold, paper is warm ;)
Being seen to go to vote may well increase participation. IIRC they even found that in a study.
And every citizen needs to be able to check the system to ensure people trust it and respect the outcome.