This is not the biggest challenge to Internet voting, but surely you agree that it's unfair that some people would now be able to vote from home while others would not? At least around me, you might wait an hour for a computer at the library during busy times.

If the point is to let people vote from home at their leisure, why not just mail everyone an absentee ballot?

First let me state that I'm arguing from an assumption that technology, when not obviously bad, is inherently good, and that increasing the use of technology is a worthy goal in itself. So in my case, the point isn't just to vote from home, but to vote from anywhere using technology. I don't believe that it's necessary to share this philosophy, however, to want to see online voting become a reality.

Obviously there are security and coercion concerns that are more detrimental to Internet voting's prospects than the class division aspects. And an absentee ballot sounds reasonable, but is not nearly as convenient as online voting (and has more potential for fraud and coercion than online voting).

My main point is that I believe class disparity is a weak argument against online voting. I don't like using postal mail or waiting in line for an hour or more at the ballot box -- does that mean that it's unfair not to let me vote from home or the library? At least in the US, with libraries, cheap DSL, and cell phones, the vast, vast majority of people not currently voting have easier access to the Internet than they do to polling stations on election day. Don't deny most people a benefit because a few people can't enjoy it.