> hyper partisan politics of the US at least could've been avoided if we just had online voting
Other countries with more proportional voting systems don't have the "too big to fail", two-party duopoly that the US has. Allowing online voting just means handing control of elections to whoever is in control of the servers (which in many cases will be the same people who are gerrymandering the districts and closing down polling places).
i agree i kinda wish we had a parliamentary system right now, but I feel that online voting could be done if it can be done in a secure way, but parliamentary system won't happen. then again i don't think online voting will happen either (that is, you could at least implement online voting locally but you can't switch to parliamentary system without changing the entire country)
The question of Parliamentary vs. Presidential is orthogonal to that of Proportional vs. Plurality. (Sorry if that terminology just makes things more confusing).
To give a concrete example, the UK uses the same plurality voting system as (most of) the US, which leads to the same two-party dynamics, even though the UK has a parliamentary system.
There's nothing stopping US states from adopting a more proportional system while keep Congress and the Presidency the same. In fact, Maine adopted Ranked Choice Voting to achieve that in 2018, and Alaska followed this year[0].
(Actually RCV is not guaranteed to produce more proportional results, but it can stop vote-splitting and lesser-of-two-evils tactical voting, which makes the outcomes better reflect the true wishes of the voters).
Other countries with more proportional voting systems don't have the "too big to fail", two-party duopoly that the US has. Allowing online voting just means handing control of elections to whoever is in control of the servers (which in many cases will be the same people who are gerrymandering the districts and closing down polling places).