One problem is that the 55+ demographic is able to vote in the civic centers they grew up with. Let us vote from our civic centers (e.g. the net) and we'll do so in much higher numbers. Increasing the barrier to political participation has the effect of excluding all but the highly motivated, thus pushing politics toward extremes.
The important barrier to (effective) participation is not the drive to an inconvenient polling location. The barrier is learning about the candidates and the issues, and enough background to fit all the pieces together.
That is, making an optimal choice for your vote is an extremely expensive undertaking. Thus, relatively few people do it well.
Clearly people don't agree with my original comment. I'll see if I can figure out where I've strayed, and make my original idea clearer.
If I may, I'd like to squish the content of your comment into the single word "motivation." At present, it takes a high enough amount of motivation to either take time off work to vote early, vote by mail, or wait in excessively long lines after work, that far fewer than a majority of people participate. The arguments I've typically heard suggest that highly-motivated voters are more likely to make correct choices, and well-informed voters are more likely to be motivated.
My (untested) conjecture is that, rather than trying to increase motivation, we should decrease the level of motivation required by making it ridiculously easy to vote. Allowing larger numbers of less-motivated voters may lead to an improved "wisdom of the crowd" effect[0][1], counterbalancing the vocal minorities that we often see controlling local and national politics.
I think buried in your statement is the idea that democracy is inherently better, an end in itself. I strongly dispute this: I think that it's more important to get to the best answer, than to follow the herd, whatever direction it might go in.
In your second link, it notes two problems. First, it says that Crowds tend to work best when there is a correct answer to the question being posed, such as a question about geography or mathematics. I submit that this is quite the opposite of political questions.
But more importantly, it also discusses one of the big problems of "Wisdom of the crowd", although it couches it as an advantage. The effect is enhanced through communication between individuals, as would (and should) be the case in any political question. To this I reply with two words: "witch hunt".
History is replete with examples wherein the common, accepted ideas of society have stood in the way of progress -- I don't think I even need to recite any. And the whole point of the United States is to protect the minority, or even the one, against the will of a strong majority. So I don't think it's wise to strengthen further the crowd-based aspect of our political system.
That Wikipedia article used to explain how democracy was not an example of "wisdom of the crowds"; I'm disappointed that I can't find an older revision with that segment intact.
But that said, it's important to distinguish "crowd" from "people". I've lately been trying to explain to people that the vote is the least important (while still being necessary) part of a democracy. The effort of explaining to the whole population why a certain law needs passage is the soul of democracy; votes are merely to maintain a formal record of dissent and to resolve deadlocks. They're decision making tools of last resort.
Sure, but they were far from being a place I'd like to revisit, especially not on election day. The Internet is the community commons of today just as much as a library or city building was 30-40 years ago.
If you want to play this game: try growing up as a liberal, atheist geek from out of town in a rural bible-belt town of ~7,000. Then, try becoming an adult and getting over it so that you can perform your civic duty.
