An argument against eVoting by internet/phone is that it is too easy and this will cause a lack of consideration of the arguments. But is this really so different from what occurs today, where the evidence suggests that general election votes depend heavily on traditional voting patterns: the term "Labour(Tory) heartlands" is frequently heard. However, there are other arguments against the "easy voting" criticism:
- Ill-considered (random) voting probably swings both ways, eliminating its influence and allowing the best argument to emerge.
- Anyone can change their vote before the count, allowing further consideration of the arguments even after initial impressions have caused an individual to "shoot (vote) from the hip".
- Voting on single issues, rather than candidates, eliminates much of the compromise inherent in votes cast today where multiple issues are mixed with personalities, sales and marketing and the decision is multi-faceted and far more complex.