I can see a rationale on Google's part, the link goes to a page on the dev's product site not directly to a secure payment processor. The dev's page is at least nominally less/un verifiable and arguably less secure. If this is the case a fix would be to put a direct link to a payment processor page.

"I can insert it, and then it resets the card, and now I'm able to vote again,"

Didn't he just overwrite his previous vote? "Vote again" is not necessarily the same as "cast two votes".

Not to say there aren't problems, there certainly are, but there is a lot of lame in this article. Not helpful.

What a bunch of idiots. Three year olds don't have strong cognitive responses to language. Don't you remember being three? I remember being in the womb (especially when the water broke, hard to forget that one). Talk about a different mode of thought. As long as people think that the way they think is the only way to think, they'll never really figure anything out, beyond social rote.

I sometimes think that an over-reliance on success at the modeling stage can lead to things like unusable software. I'm currently working with a product that theoretically replaces me. but because it can't break its own rules, it ends up coming short in real-world applications, and here I am not only operating a product that is too sophisticated for the average user, but that is also intrinsically incapable of doing some very simple things that are only called for about 2% of the time. but when you need em, you need em. and those last 2% can make the difference between success and failure. but that doesn't make the product a failure; it's unquestionably good at what it does do. the failure lies on the part of users/planners/managers who mistake power and complexity for universality.