The internet is a tool of debatable efficacy when it comes to voting. We're actually switching one logistical problem for another.

Now, I'm going to assume you're talking about an online system where everyone can vote on everything online. If I am incorrect, please let me know.

First, this doesn't remove any lobbying system, but rather makes it more difficult to hold accountable. The causative relationship becomes murky: social media groups and online personalities in turn can become very powerful actors in pushing and proposing political positions, and some of them may be acting for or against other groups. Consider, for example, the accessibility of a large group such as Stormfront or 4chan coming together to influence policy.

Of course, based on 4chan's track record, we can likely say that they won't be launching nuclear missiles or anything of that sort, but innocuous positions can turn quickly into larger problems, some of them we cannot know. Part of the voting system is the implementation of cost of going to weed out the interested from the uninterested.

Second, we're assuming bottom-up approach in politics. The apparatus is top-down, because as much as politicians tend to greedy, partisan, and corrupt in many instances, they are professional political animals. A voting system will require not only a more intelligent and technocratically understanding populace, but will also require that everybody has the time to do the research to implement the pareto rational choice.

A large group of people working with limited information on a given subject means that there is no-one majorly accountable for the swaying of the group. This isn't because people are stupid or vacuous or anything of that sort: it's that we actorize large and complex systems when we're given a very limited timeframe to appeal to our most basic requirements. In most scenarios, that works, but it takes only one unfortunate Unknown Unknown to discombobulate such wisdom of the crowds (take the fervour for war in the wake of a catastrophe, for example).

Third, you haven't changed prioritization. One of the problems associated with these lobbyists and politicians having become so powerful in the face of their public corruption is that they have a base that prioritizes certain values over other values. For instance, one politician, if corrupt, may be a devout Christian, and that wins over a certain group.

This means that even if you get rid of the politician, you haven't changed the voting values of certain people. Even more importantly, you haven't changed the prioritization of certain vocal people. So if people aren't politically active in a given area (say, a suburban metropolis or a place with very poor internet access or poor information networks), they are at a disadvantage against a more collective group of people.

Fourth, this doesn't address the inherent inability to impose a Veil of Ignorance upon the populace. People will still group with people that have interests that coincide with theirs. They'll still conceive of relations on a Self versus Other dynamic, internet or not; we see the same thing forming on subreddits, so why should online politics change anything?

This is important because this means we may not account for the worst off people in society. Failing to do so does not make a better society, it must makes a less accountable society.

Fifth, the veil of internet politics. I don't know what people mean when they say things in the context of honesty. How do we aggregate opinions of people who are vocal versus opinions of people just lurk? How can we formulate effective policy from that?

This is immensely important when we consider that there are informal and amorphous beta structures that exist in society that does not translate very well into the internet. What if my father does not approve of something being passed, and he wants me to disapprove of it, even if I do not? While we may sit here and say with haughty breath that we have to make a stand, there are families that ideologically mould their members against their will (consider atheists staying in the closet for the sake of their parents, for example). How can we account for what value of the population is being honest and which is not?

If I go to a booth and vote, I can lie about who I voted for so my dinner that night doesn't turn into a shouting match. I can pretend like I don't mind representative X because it wouldn't change his position. But if my family, friends, or neighbourhood are breathing down my neck (consider factory towns - what contrarian would dare risk a witch hunt if they decide to a 'community voting session'?), how can I truthfully express my opinion?

Sixth, foreign policy. We need to externalize ourselves to others, and politicians and lobbyists are useful for that purpose. A mass does not have a very cohesive message when trying to implement any sort of grand strategy.

This is even more important considering that the United States (which I assume is your case example) is a credit consumer, commands the world's largest bearer of security commons, and is heavily embroiled in geopolitics in every corner of the globe. If we say "we must get out of X", then we have to carefully consider the effect it has not only on us, but also on the countries affected by the directive we implement. We could be making the bin Ladens of tomorrow without knowing it. Politicians are necessary scapegoats in foreign policy that we can point at and say 'this one is responsible'. Not to escape responsibility, but because it provides an essential feeling of security in society.

There are other reasons, ranging from collusion to voter disproportionality, to registration, to network compromise, to pandemics and endemics, but these are the ones I'll bother to want you to consider for now, since they're mainly high concept issues.

I like the idea of Internet integration, don't get me wrong, but there's reasons why people haven't so readily accepted it yet, especially high in Washington, and that's partly because of questions like these.

tl;dr you must account for:

• you make lobbying harder to spot

• large groups tend to simplify complicated systems

• people will still vote for shitty things because they internally prioritize

• group politics will still be pissing contests

• my dad can make me vote for something against my will

• this fucks up foreign policy

Again, this is a general overview of the issues that might crop up, but I'll need more information on what you mean by your proposal. Much of this is a rehash of the stuff that's already said, so I apologise if it comes off as a bit repetitive.