[fg6hr]

If you wrote this with a double intent, you would be a great politician, seriously. By the double intent I mean that on the surface level this clever speech looks good and convincing, but between the lines it delivers the opposite evil message.

The techies are against this because they know the technical side and understand how fragile this seemingly secure system is. This is the equivalent of 737 MAX story: the execs shout how solid the plane is, while engineers cry the opposite. They speak up because they are on the losing side: if this system gets implemented, it won't be them who will control the votes.

The "major security risks" are intentionally there. These are backdoors that allow the right people to control the votes.

We don't need 100% voter turn out. We only need voters who care. There are a lot of people who don't care and have no time or desire to learn about what they vote for. These careless voters are often easily manipulated by media and thus someone who controls the media would love all these people to vote.

The nation policies would indeed change immediately: it would be a rapid erosion of those rights we still have; and if "forward thinking" means repealing 2A, then no thanks, I'd rather use my backwards thinking here.