This. The thing about "get out the vote" campaigns is, they're intended to draw out the least-involved, least-informed members of the electorate. Which in my book is a bad thing.

Voting is not the only civic duty - educating yourself on the issues at hand is also part of that civic duty. If someone doesn't want to vote because taking the legally-mandated time off to go to the polls or fill out their mail-in ballot is "too much work," I'm not sure they're living up to their end of the bargain as a citizen.

Exercising your right to vote doesn't mean you value it. Shouldn't we be asking how we can get people to value their vote enough to be engaged?

Irrespective of that, haven't we already witnessed the mass security issues that come with making voting machines digital? Do we really want to subject that flawed scenario to even more flaws by putting it out on the web? Do we never learn?

Some people believe, if a politician has $X to spend, they're more likely to spend it on things demographics with high turnout rates want than things demographics with low turnout rates want.

So for example, these people see the interests of people of retirement age represented much better than the interests of under-30s. They see this as part of the cause of rising college costs, and rising house prices transferring wealth from the young to the old.

By this model, every non-voter that starts voting is a step towards more even -and hence more just- representation. And if you're in a demographic with a below-average voting rate, the state better serving your needs.

Of course, that's a largely academic argument in the election of the board of supervisors for a conservation district, who probably don't have much influence on matters like house prices.

>In essence we'd be diluting the vote of those who care the most with those who think voting by mail is too hard.

I travel a lot. So much so that I am actually flying back to Iowa from the West Coast for 2 days in order to participate in the caucus, and flying out again for work the following day. While I am ok with purchasing a plane ticket to participate, it's understandable that others in my situation, particularly in less important states, would not be ok with incurring that cost. Being able to vote by phone would enable absentee voters who are not always around to participate in their home state's elections.

With that being said I understand I am a fringe case - but those who don't vote because "voting by mail is too hard" are likely a fringe case as well. I'd venture to guess those same people wouldn't vote because "they don't want another app on their phone".

> If someone has that worldview I'm OK with them not voting.

Then advocate for making it illegal for some people to vote.