Although there are limited data available, all indications are that Internet voting is not hazardous. So far it doesn't seem to be carcinogenic, nor has anyone become pregnant or contracted an STD by Internet voting.

We have to assume that if the Internet is secure enough for us to buy stuff, then it is secure enough for voting. Certainly far more effort will be spent to make transactions involving money secure than to make voting secure. From a practical standpoint, only close elections can be stolen anyway. If a close election is stolen, then approximately the same number of persons disagree with the result as if the election were not stolen, so what difference does it really make from the standpoint of quality of outcome?

The Washington Post has merely realized that it needs to allow ignorant posters their forum in order to compete with talk radio. I have seen little evidence that ensuing discussions necessarily iterate to rational, informed conclusions.

Providing a forum for extreme ideas is a bit like teaching creationism in science classes.

Since we are logically zero based, a meaningful series would be 0123456789, not 1234567890 which just seems wrong here in computer land.

To perl the number 0123456789 is merely bogus. "Illegal octal digit..."