Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review March 28, 2001 / 4 Nissan, 5761

Jonah Goldberg

Jonah Goldberg
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Cast a negative ballot for Internet voting -- NOW that former dot-com millionaires are forced to use public transportation to take advantage of the early-bird special at Sizzler, it seems we're all open to some common sense about the Internet.

We now know that was never going to replace Johnson & Johnson, and Nestle had nothing to fear from And now, finally, it's dawning on people that moving our democratic system lock, stock and barrel to cyberspace is a stupid idea, too.

The good news is that a new survey by the Information Technology Association of America found that only a small fraction of Americans think Internet voting is a good idea. Also, a study issued by the National Science Foundation this month found that technology is not up to snuff.

But there's bad news, too. While two-thirds of Americans overall oppose Internet voting, almost two-thirds of 18- to 24-year-olds favor it - which means this is an idea whose time may yet come.

Worse, the National Science Foundation reaches the right conclusions for all the wrong reasons. The authors say, "Although remote Internet voting could maximize convenience the security problems cannot be resolved using even the most sophisticated technology today."

Alas, ever since the idea of remote Internet voting - i.e. from your home, office or wireless doohickey - was hatched, almost the entire debate has been over how it can be done, not whether it should be done at all. Indeed, the consensus among pro- and anti-Web-voting forces is that it would be a good idea if we could do it.

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill., summarized the argument when he introduced legislation to study Web voting in 1999. "American families increasingly find it difficult to take time from their busy work schedules, child care and community activities to vote," he said. "I believe the Internet could make voting easier, more convenient and extremely efficient."

Putting aside the question of which "community activities" don't let people vote once every year or so, Jackson concluded that Web voting "presents a fantastic opportunity to reverse a 40-year decline in national voter turnout."

Well, no, it doesn't. It may increase voting), but cyberelections would decrease actual (ital) turnout (end ital) in the sense that fewer people would actually turn-out of their homes to vote. And that's the point: Since when is convenience a particularly important criterion?

Look at it this way: The Wall Street Journal recently reported that high schools are having a difficult time keeping students from using Internet sites that translate English into foreign languages. Kids just type the assigned homework into a Web site, hit "enter," and presto! They've done their Spanish homework. Now, if the result of this technological boon is that Spanish grades go up across the country but fewer kids take their homework seriously or learn Spanish, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Those who wring their hands about such things as voter apathy need to ask themselves, is low voter-turnout bad because fewer votes are cast or because fewer people care enough to vote? If it's the former, if you only care that more ballots are cast, why not pay people to vote? That would solve the problem in a jiffy.

But if you are concerned that too few Americans care enough to be bothered to vote, then making it easier for them doesn't solve anything. In fact, someone needs to explain to me how the quality of our government will be improved by a huge influx of people who will only cast a ballot for president if they can do it during commercials of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." Lowering the bar for what constitutes a good citizen does not create more good citizens.

Of course we'll eventually solve the technological and security problems with Internet voting. America always solves technological glitches. But, again, just because we can doesn't mean we should. If convenience was so important, how come we didn't get to work on voting by phone a century ago?

Originally only white, landowning men could be allowed to vote. We are all supposed to ritualistically denounce such standards as racist and sexist. So fine; I hereby denounce the racism and sexism of such criteria.

But what exactly is wrong with the idea that there should be some minimal requirements for voting? We've all sat next to some mouth-breathing doofus on a plane and wondered, "How come this guy's vote counts as much as mine?"

Well, maybe there's no fair intelligence test that will weed out the unworthy, but there is a fair citizenship test. And if you're only willing to pull the ballot lever if it's on your remote control, then you fail.

To comment on JWR contributor Jonah Goldberg's column click here.


03/23/01: Hollywood's high on action films, for global market success
03/21/01: Republicans should be cautious of 'compassionate conservatism'
03/19/01: "Traffic" moves propaganda into drug-policy debate
03/15/01: Appeal of 'Sopranos' lies in strict code of honor
03/09/01: Organic claims are cleverly written fiction
03/07/01: Snow job: There the media go again
03/02/01: It's a vision thing
02/28/01: SAT is best measure of general aptitude
02/26/01: Easing the estate tax
02/23/01: Clinton defenders finally admit to his power abuses
02/21/01: Failed dot-coms missed rules of the marketplace
02/15/01: Clinton heeds my Harlem advice
02/12/01: Harlem could be Bill's best move yet
02/06/01: Lying, betrayal essential parts of journalism
01/18/01: How to polarize candidates
01/15/01: Dems never tire of using 'race card'
01/11/01: Taking the celebrity out of politics
01/08/01: Unfairly 'borking' Ashcroft
01/04/01: Want to be more efficient? Increase number of politicians
01/02/01: Whole lotta exploitin' goin' on
12/28/00: Hypocrisy police pounce on Clinton book deal
12/26/00: Sometimes, it's good to be a Grinch
12/21/00: Though symbolic, Bush's diversity sends a message
12/19/00: Gore concedes --- but why did it take so long?
12/14/00: Is 'Queer as Folk' what we asked for?
12/11/00: Election mess hardly a 'civics lesson'
12/07/00: Clinton's tacky legacy
12/05/00: Marriage civilizes the manly beast
11/30/00: Gore's speech more pompous posturing
11/28/00: Rabble-rousing Dems act irresponsibly
11/27/00: Duking it out with democracy
11/16/00: Issues irrelevant to most voters
11/14/00: Gore's us-vs.-them campaign
11/10/00: Dot-com disasters missing brand-name success
11/06/00: Conventional wisdom turns with the polls
11/03/00: Clinton photo, appropriately, hits below the belt
11/01/00: Electoral college ensures democracy
10/30/00: New Yorkers, media letting Hillary off the hook
10/23/00: Gore needs to put first things first
10/20/00: Treatment of Farrakhan glosses over odd issues
10/16/00: Secrets of election can be found in 'Star Trek'
10/12/00: Arafat hardly 'provoked' into violence
10/10/00: Undecided voters may be ignorant, not discriminating
10/06/00: The importance of character isn't debatable
10/03/00: Conservatives are the true friends of science You know why?
09/29/00: Symbolic 'born alive' vote makes sense
09/25/00: Conservatives adopt abandoned liberalism
09/21/00: Ventura's media backpedaling makes fiction of his new book
09/18/00: Tough questions target Hillary Clinton's elitism
09/14/00: Hollywood morality to blame
09/11/00: Specifically, AlGore's detailed plan is meaningless
09/07/00: Time-honored tradition: Insult the press
09/05/00: Scouting out justice
08/30/00: The ADL's historical revisionism
08/28/00: Sitcoms will survive, post-"Survivor"
08/24/00: Candidates' choice of movies shows refreshing honesty
08/21/00: An AlGore victory? Only if dead birds fly
08/17/00: AlGore is doomed, but Dems ignore warning signs
08/15/00: Proud and true: He's a Jew
08/10/00: Exploiting religion would be tragic mistake
08/08/00: Cheney serves up tempting appetizer
08/03/00: Republicans now 'nice,' media still nasty
08/01/00: Presidential campaign could use some anti-metric mania
07/27/00: Government shouldn't subsidize Reform Party
07/25/00: Campaign finance 'reform' gives too much power to liberal media
07/20/00: Hillary slur speaks volumes
07/18/00: AlGore's McCarthyism
07/11/00: 'Survivor' shows hypocrisy of animal rights groups
07/05/00: McDonald's deserves a break today
07/03/00: On July Fourth, time to reflect on America's founding
06/28/00: America bashing becomes international pastime
06/23/00: If Fonda is sorry, let her say so
06/06/00: NAPSTER exposes artists' hypocrisy
04/18/00: Not much difference between TV journalists, TV actors

© 2000, TMS