[LINK] Why Electronic Voting?

[Chris Maltby]

> Kim Holburn wrote:
> >If we had a completely electronic system of voting we could trust and 
> >that would give us near instantaneous voting results, our society 
> >could become much closer to a real democracy.  

On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 03:04:44PM +1100, Richard Chirgwin wrote:
> This is probably the point that needs the most justification - rather 
> than just assertion. My position is that while the "instavote" looks 
> more democratic, its cost is a less democratic process. You get to vote 
> "right now" on something, so that's a plus; but the ordinary voter can't 
> look inside the process, making it less democratic.

I agree - the problem with instant referendums is that most serious
political decisions are complex and the arguments need to be put and
debated before an informed decision can be made. That's too much to
ask of the average person on a continuous basis, but without their
participation the decision can't be described as democratic. The
decision is also one dimensional - yes or no, without the option of
middle-ground or radical alternatives.

The point of having elected representatives is that they have the time
for debate and hopefully the skills needed to reach wise decisions (I
am not claiming that this is what actually happens in our Parliaments).

The most promising way to reduce institutional bias in decision
making is the use of citizens juries. And electronic voting is of
zero importance there.