Unfortunately this article falls apart on one, crucial premise in the second paragraph.
>That all sounds fine, until you look at the state of non-electronic democracy right now.
The hugely relevant facts that are missing here are manifold. Most notably you need to be clear you're talking strictly about US democracy: there are plenty of other western democracies not plagued by industrialised, partisan voter suppression and gerrymandering that don't suffer the same consequent issues. More immediately, you must be aware that the overwhelming majority of US ballots are in fact already cast electronically. In the last presidential round near-enough 100% of votes were cast in jurisdictions using either direct-entry or optical-scan ballots. Yes these may have physical backups, but they are at their core e-Voting systems, so your whole premise is invalid unless you want to work to explore why _your_ e-Voting proposal is superior to the ones what we've got.
Fundamentally if you replaced those half a dozen broken, shit systems we've got today a hundred, shiny, tech-bro endorsed hypersolutions, the end result would be a hundred new ways for the vote to be suppressed and hijacked. Your proposal is the worst of all worlds.
And from there, frankly, we're off to the deep end:
>Last time, as it usually does, the Republican party lost the popular vote and won the presidency
In all of US partisan electoral history, this has happened exactly four times, and frankly I think you're going to struggle to be taken seriously if you think a result from 1888 should be entered into an argument concerning electronic voting. Likewise I don't see how you're connecting the dots from voting reform to fixing the electoral college. Stick to facts, not hyperbole.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
