Bree points to an unusual and deeply wrong article that actually opposes Internet voting. Frankly, I couldn't wade through the whole thing, but Bree summarizes it nicely. This has come up because Markham, Ontario is the first city in North America to approve Internet voting (for this fall's municipal election).
Anybody who opposes Internet voting has got to be on some special, evil kind of crack (Bree refutes this guy effectively, so I'm not going to bother). Voter turnout has been decreasing steadily since 1988. Though, in truth, this chart suggests that it's not at a worryingly low level yet. Ask me after the next federal election. This article says that, in three municipalities in Europe, Internet voting increased votes cast by 20%. Twenty percent, folks! That moves our meagre 63% turnout from the 2000 federal election to a level unheard of since 1917 (when I suspect mostly women were voting, or all the men at war were forced to vote). Of course, you're probably going to get a better increase on a municipal level than a federal one, but even 10% would be pretty meaningful.
As presidential hopeful Howard Dean notes, 'The Internet might soon be the last place where open dialogue occurs.' Kudos also to Liberal party leader hopeful Paul Martin, who has a blog of his own. Here's why he's got a blog. On that page, he says 'durm and strang'. Isn't it actually 'sturm and drang'? Error, spoonerism or homespun variation? It's certainly ain't common on Google.
Canada Internet Politics