A reader is against online voting. PHOTO/FILE
Dylan Thorne (Opinion, October 3) enthuses over the perceived benefits of online voting, however extensive research suggests otherwise. The end result is not justified by the significant increase in election costs, in my view.
Overseas trials demonstrate no increase in voting percentage. Those wanting to vote will, as evidenced
by the 86% turnout in Scotland referendum. At the opposite end of the spectrum is the 2015 Te Arawa Board election where only 25% of the 12,000 eligible voters exercised their rights. Of these only 690 used the online option, ie a mere 6% of the eligible voters! Voter apathy is the root cause.
Recent examples of interference in online voting include 4000 more votes cast than eligible voters in Scandinavia, Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck voting in the US, and in NSW 2015, 66,000 votes were cast before a flaw was detected. There was no way of determining the legitimacy of these votes.
Cyber attack is becoming a 'sport' for those with nothing better to do. In 2014, 147 cyber attack incidents were reported to the NZ Cyber Security Centre. In only the first six months of 2015, 132 were reported of which 79 of which were against government agencies. Washington trialled a system inviting people to try to hack into it. In 24 hours, 47 had!
Most importantly, the Dept of Internal Affairs acknowledges there are more security risks associated with online voting than with a postal system (P6 DIA online voting framework guide, 2015). As technology improves, so does the technology to destroy it. Scary stuff.
