You and Coeurderoy both have narrow views of voting. Yours is that voting would/should only be done once a year or once every two years. Imagine the hypothetical secure, open "perfect" voting system that has all the authentication/authorization requirements, yadda yadda. We could have referendums once a week! Gallup and the others would be out of a job, because people could officially state their opinion in a way that could sway public policy. The White House petitions that are such a joke could have millions of votes a week on hot-topics, putting more pressure on the administration to enact the will of the people (so long as that will doesn't disobey Constitution or law).
Coeurderoy, on the other hand, assumes that the perfect system would have to be used at home. Perhaps we would have permanent "reserve" voting areas specifically set up to provide access when residential areas have power/Internet issues. Or we could have multi-day voting, or postpone votes when too many peoples' ability is blocked. It's just like thunderstorms/flooding is nowadays... there are contingencies.
In summary, I agree that a secure online perfect voting system is a long way away, if it's ever going to exist. Where we disagree: I believe that if it DID exist, it would be immensely beneficial.