[icebraining]

From your second link: "True, if you consider vote buying a type of electoral fraud, the scheme is not fraud-proof."

And of course, "vote buying" can be substituted by "coerced voting". Any system where someone can physically see the voter casting their vote is flawed, regardless of whatever tricks you then use to obscure it once it's in the system.

[greeneggs]

It is a matter of degree. Anyone can carry a cell phone into a voting booth to photograph their ballot. And we already have voting by mail in many jurisdictions.

[icebraining]

Anyone can carry a cell phone into a voting booth to photograph their ballot.

And then they can spoil the ballot before putting it in the box. Not so with this digital system.

And we already have voting by mail in many jurisdictions.

Which I'm also against, except possibly for emigrants.

[daedalus_j]

In the state of Oregon votes are handled 100% vote-by-mail. I've never heard any complaints from them about voter coercion or other issues caused by not physically stepping into a voting booth.

If there are any issues caused by this in Oregon, or other locales that use vote-by-mail, how come these articles never bring them up? I can only surmise that vote-by-mail seems to work pretty well so far, so what's the rationale for being against it?

[astazangasta]

Why? Voting by mail vastly increases access and has few risks of fraud. What's not to like?