That’s the idea.
Jacob Weisberg, for Slate, wrote about online voting in 1999:
“[Online voting] makes it easier for some people to vote – especially the handicapped, people living abroad, and frequent flyers – without inconveniencing anyone else.”
“Over the next decade, access to the Internet is forecast to become dirt cheap and quasi-ubiquitous. But for those who still can’t afford or don’t want private access at home, there will be public Internet terminals in libraries, schools – and probably grocery stores and bus stations as well. E-voting might actually be a boon to the poor, who often can’t miss work to vote as easily as higher-income types can.”
Did grocery stores and bus stations have internet terminals? I forget. A fond memory was sitting at an internet cafe in Harvard Square and ordering pastries and coffee from a terminal before a human waiter brought the food to my table. It was amazing! But, I digress.
Weisberg’s first paragraph is more grounded in reality, identifying social groups of people who were and probably still are most likely to take advantage of online voting.
Last week, Newsweek published an article profiling online voting initiatives in West Virginia and Georgia, adding that transmitting ballots through the internet may trigger interference from hackers. That’s a valid argument.
With the pandemic motivating people to vote by mail instead of walking into a physical location, I’m sure the time approaches in a safer world when online voting will be offered as well.
