That's to the good. My last misgiving was that phone voting would lead to impulse voting, that people would see an impressive speech or an attack ad on TV and rush to the phone and cast a vote that would be regretted later. But that problem can be prevented by allowing phone voting only on election day. This strikes me as a particularly desirable capability, given the growth in the popularity in recent years of early voting, which is now done up to three weeks before election day, either by mail or at special polling stations. The current system provides no way for early voters to reconsider their ballots in the light of new information that may be revealed in the late days of a campaign, as currently happens.
Phone voting does.
There are more positive reasons for supporting phone voting. As suggested previously, boosting the currently anemic turnout in city elections is obviously one of them. A large turnout would give the successful candidates for City Council a broader mandate. Chances are council members who have a broad base of support are less likely to be sympathetic to special pleadings and more likely to resist trying to solve problems by oiling squeaky wheels instead of doing the greatest good for the greatest number. A broader electoral mandate could serve as an antidote.