…ort argued that online voting would increase the number of voters and reduce costs by 26% per vote. Unfortunately it missed significant risks and argued for saving costs by making it harder for millions of mostly disadvantaged UK citizens to exercise their democratic rights. Rather than arguing to reduce the cost of democracy, we should be arguing to make it better.
It would be helpful to understand the specific risks around potential disenfranchisement here, including under different scenarios.
For example, the impact of an ‘online only system’ that did away with polling cards might be stark, but it’s less clear what the negative impacts would be from ‘online as well’ offering.
When weighing up the risks and benefits, we should also consider the impact from not having an online system and how the failure to provide such a service might contribute to the disenfranchisement of an already underserved segement of society.