When we cast our election votes a fundamental criteria must always be the integrity of the system.
Until that can be guaranteed, caution in adopting internet voting is appropriate.
The Dunedin City Council this week faced this issue, along with the matter of costs, and baulked at taking part in an online voting trial at next year's local body elections by 10 votes to four.
That was the right decision on both counts.
Instead, the city will continue only with postal voting.
No doubt, voting over the internet will come but just not yet, despite assurances from private elections contractor Electionz.com Ltd that the technology was mature and there had not been problems.
It did not deny the concerns but said the security risks were low while the potential benefits were significant.
These included fewer mistakes, easier access to voting for some and longer-term savings when electors opted not to receive voting packs by post.
As citizens become more and more used to transactions online - this already takes places for the likes of renewing passports or car registration - internet voting will inevitably become the norm.
One specific advantage, for example, will be fewer spoiled votes.
Electronic feedback will tell voters when they have failed to follow instructions properly.
The warnings, though, of Dunedin computer experts to councillors about potential problems need to be taken seriously.
After all, it was as close as in New South Wales that issues emerged with the iVote system.
This began for the state elections in 2011, designed to help the disabled and those out of the state on polling day.
Nearly 47,000 voted through the internet or the telephone that year and more than 280,000 this March.
But this year, after 19,000 votes had been cast, iVote was suspended while a problem was fixed, before resuming.
Human error was blamed.
Add in software errors, hackers, malware, transgressions by administrators and there is plenty of scope for things going wrong.
Too much relies on trusting the election computer servers and voters' computers, and there are also audit and privacy questions.
Internet voting takes place in many countries already, although some such as the Netherlands and Ireland have abandoned it after issues arose. Estonia is commonly cited as perhaps the leading example of internet voting, using it in public referendums.
A group of University of Michigan experts, however, examined the process at close quarters and was alarmed.
''With the growing risk of state-level cyber attacks, the team unanimously recommends discontinuing internet voting until there are fundamental advances in computer security,'' they said.
This is not to say postal voting is without drawbacks.
Papers can be stolen from letterboxes and voters have less privacy than in a ballot booth.
Nevertheless, postal voting manipulation is largely only possible in small and scattered ways, apart from, of course, state corruption that can ruin every system.
In part, postal voting was introduced to increase participation.
It is easier to post a paper than go to a polling station on a specific day.
Rates improved for a while before dropping back again.
The hope will be that the ''digital native'' generations are more likely to vote via the devices that are so much a part of their lives.
Posting letters for many is being anachronistic and internet voting for younger citizens will be easy.
But that benefit is insufficient at the moment when weighed against security risks.
Dunedin, in pulling out of the trial being organised for next year's local elections, was the fifth local authority in New Zealand to do so.
Eight councils have agreed to go ahead.
Dunedin's additional bill of up to $165,000 to take part in the trial was alone sufficient reason to decline.
Although some councillors and senior staff might like the idea of being at the forefront of matters modern, their egos should be put aside for basic dollars and sense.
Ratepayers' money is precious and $165,000 should not be spent when it is not essential.
Let others sort out the perils, pitfalls and advantages of internet voting first.
