[edelans]

e-voting enables more sophisticated voting methods, such as [Range Voting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_voting).

Range voting is arguably more democratic than some other voting methods. But much more complicated to put in place with paper ballots :/.

[dragonwriter]

There's a fundamental issue in voting, which is that ballot markings may not have a consistent meaning from voter to voter. Most analysis of voting methods ignore this and it's impacts, which are difficult to quantify, but it's pretty clear the effect is maximized in two cases:

(1) systems which limit rankings to a fixed number (the most extreme case for real ballot methods being two) of ranks (approval and FPTP both are two-ranks methods), and

(2) system which use numerical ranking systems that draw fiber distinctions than mere ordinal ranking (range/score voting being the main example.)

The problem is minimized in ranked-ballots methods, though there is room for debate over whether forced or unforced rankings are better in this regard.

For this reason, I would reject range voting for most public elections independent of practical difficulty (there might be exceptional cases where a consistent meaning can be attached to range ballots, but it's not the case in normal public elections.)

OTOH, ranked ballots Condorcet methods which need to compare pairwise results are probably more tractable with e-voting (or, rather, e-tallying.)

[ClayShentrup]

Basyesian Regret calculations show Range Voting to be superior, even when accounting for your objections.

http://scorevoting.net/BayRegsFig.html

There's even a theorem that it tends to elect Condorcet winners under plausible models of voter strategy.

http://scorevoting.net/AppCW

Believe me, its advocates have heard every criticism you can imagine, and the counter-argument is robust. I recommend you check out the book "Gaming the Vote".