Voting via the Internet is the coming trend in electoral politics, and for some good reasons. The low voter response in Maine last week is not among them.

With no statewide contests or referenda, only one congressional primary and just a smattering of races for legislative nominations, the surprise would have been a turnout greater than the 10 percent or so it was. The most apparent benefits of voting online — ease and convenience — can’t help when there’s just so little on the ballot.

Still, Secretary of State Dan Gwadosky is right to be concerned about the apathy that is creeping into Maine — a state once among the elite in voter turnout is slipping, not just in uncontested primaries but in elections with much at stake. Mr. Gwadosky’s office is, as he puts it, “in the democracy business,” and business, here and across the nation, is in a slump.

Arizona held the first binding election using Internet voting in its March Democratic primary. Aside from a few minor and scattered minor technical glitches, it went smoothly, the system worked well. But with little on the ballot to get voters excited — Vice President Gore had already pretty well dispatched Bill Bradley — the participation by e-voters was dismal, barely 5 percent.

And that was with a four-day window to log on and vote. The event received wide national news coverage in which numerous voters were quoted as saying they found online voting easy and convenient. None said they found it novel or empowering. Very few were in any way induced to vote when they otherwise would have passed.

There’s a lot to be said for ease and convenience and nothing says a vote cast after driving to the polls and standing in line is a better-informed vote. But based upon the scant evidence of one primary with a foregone conclusion, there is no reason to believe Internet voting will make voters out of a significant number of nonvoters.

There are reasons, already outlined by Mr. Gwadosky, to proceed with great caution. Hacking is a high art form among the criminal class, so the potential for fraud or for total disruption of the electoral process is enormous. The question of integrity — one actual person, one actual vote — still runs up against the question of privacy. The curtain at the polling place provides it, no system of PIN numbers or passwords can yet make that guarantee.

With its paucity of contests, last week’s primary was, in some ways, an anomoly, but declining voter turnouts have been the trend in elections even with much at stake. Once the security problems are solved, online voting is inevitable. It just isn’t a cure for apathy.