Should the United States adopt an electronic direct democracy?

Should the United States adopt an electronic direct democracy?

To answer this question we must define the terms. A direct democracy is a system of government in which the citizens of a nation elect policy directly. Adding the term electronic infers that the vote will be cast, collected and counted via electronic means e.g. voting on personal smartphones, tablets or computers.

The pros of direct democracy are numerous. It would make the experience of voting much easier as one might not have to take time to travel to a polling area to have his voice heard. The amount of people who actually vote would rise provided the system was user friendly. Personnel stationed overseas in remote areas without regular access to mail service may be able to cast their vote quickly without compromising mission integrity. The policies enacted would be inarguably what the majority of the people want.

However, there are as many cons as there are positives. Voter verification has been an issue with the traditional methods of voting and I see it being worse with an electronic direct democracy. People would find a way to skew results by making more than one vote or by voting for other people. Security issues are abound with regards to anything electronic as there is no such thing as a hack-proof system. This form of government would leave US policy open to cyber-attacks from hostile nations seeking to crash the system or slant results. Also, the cost of implementing a system to be used by the entire population of the United States would be incalculable and would  likely be continually prone to mishaps or crashing. People inexperienced with or completely without electronics (such as the poor and elderly) would be unable to voice their opinions.

James Madison, in Federalist No. 10 warned against direct democracy in order to protect the minority from the majority. He states, “A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole… and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual” (“The Federalist #10”). This I believe to be the biggest downfall of an electronic direct democracy. If precisely 51% decides on an issue (including voter fraud and misrepresented elderly and poor), it would become law and the remaining half of the country would have to concede or become a criminal.

In short, if we were living in a perfect world, I think it could be feasible, however I do not think an electronic direct democracy is a viable option at this time and in the current global climate.

Source:
“The Federalist #10.” The Daily Advertiser, 1787. Web. 5 Feb. 2015.