On Thursday Scott Erker asked, "How can voting over the Internet be more subject to coercion than, say, being at a frat or sorority dinner and having the president say 'you better vote tomorrow and here is who we are voting for?'" The greatest virtue of voting at designated polls - and the reason online voting has not caught on for national or state elections - is the fact that we have a secret ballot.
No matter what verbal coercion potential voters may experience, they alone determine who to vote for, and everyone emerges with the same "I Voted" sticker regardless of which candidate or party they chose. The current system provides the privacy and security necessary for democracy to function. By contrast, online voting allows an organization to force its members to log on with their UF ID in front of the group and directly control every individual's vote. The measure intended to increase voter turnout would actually undermine the integrity of the electoral process.
If this argument sounds familiar, it is because Chief Justice Brian Aungst explained it at Tuesday's Senate meeting. Had the protesters not stormed out before hearing the explanation, they could have spared the student body some angry and misleading letters.
