Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 100% voter turnout

themacro.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 458 posts

Re: Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 100% voter turnout

#41

Post by nickff »

debracleaver wrote: post #2

Hey everyone. Debra Cleaver here, founder of Vote.org. I am ready to answer all of your questions about voting in the US, as long as they are non-partisan. Partisan questions should be directed to your local political party. I'm especially keen to talk about ways we can use technology to modernize the election process. My current focus is how we can use electronic signatures to roll out online voter registration in s…

Hi Debra,

Why do you want to increase turnout? Have you read some of the work on voter ignorance, which shows that voters have very little political knowledge, and are deeply influenced by various biases? This work shows that non-voters are have even worse prejudices and are less knowledgable than voters; how would getting these people to the polls help?[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter

Re: Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 100% voter turnout

#42

Post by seomis »

To those commenting with some variation of "only informed citizens should vote," pause and consider how much overlap there is with your idea of what an "informed" voter is with race/class lines. You may be unwittingly (or wittingly in some cases?) insisting that voters in the US should be, disproportionately, wealthier whites.

Re: Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 100% voter turnout

#43

Post by ohitsdom »

debracleaver wrote: post #19
sethbannon wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey Debra, Thanks for everything you're doing to increase participation in our democracy! I know it's a bit far-sighted, but would love to hear your thoughts on electronic voting. Is it feasible? Desirable? What do we need to get there?

seth, it's feasible, but not with existing technology. i'm off-hand, somewhat flippant rule of thumb is that this isn't something we can realistically discuss until we can go a single week without a major security breach. right now breaches are so common that they barely merit a news mention. once we're there in terms of security, however, i am confident that we will see a radical increase in voter turnout.

I get that security is a major, major concern but scanning headlines seems like a really poor metric for deciding when technology is "ready". There will always be bad/rushed/under-staffed developers and bad business decisions that lead to security breaches. That doesn't mean existing technology isn't capable of being secure.

Re: Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 100% voter turnout

#44

Post by logfromblammo »

swalsh wrote: post #9

I've always thought that online voting could be made MORE secure than traditional systems. If you combine cryptography with more traditional layers. It can also be anonymous. Take an existing online registration, allow a user to login, and "create a password". Take the password, hash it with the users registration id, and a salt, and that becomes the id for a ballot. Now a user can always login, and view their existi…

A truly secure system is not going to debut in conjunction with a government vote. It just isn't, for multiple reasons--not the least of which is corruption.

Such a system would have to decide something popular, but ultimately unimportant, first. Examples would be the winner of a competition show like American Idol, or a referendum/sweepstakes to name a new Doritos or Pringles flavor.

Once the system has been proven in a large, but unimportant, nation-scale vote, we can then begin to ask "why can't we vote on important issues in the same way?"

Re: Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 100% voter turnout

#45

Post by redthrowaway »

wturner wrote: post #18
redthrowaway wrote: post #12

Not to sound elitist, but is that really a good thing? What sorts of people are going to be simultaneously not motivated to vote, and good at picking the best candidate?

It is irrelevant. Democracy isn't about picking the best candidate, it is about achieving a median that facilitates social order.

I actually like Karl Popper's take: elections are for getting rid of bad rulers, nothing more. Constitutional limits on government ensure a free and open society, while insulating leaders from the will of the people prevents a tyranny of the majority.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/01/ka...

Re: Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 100% voter turnout

#46

Post by dkopi »

nerfhammer wrote: post #21
redthrowaway wrote: post #12

Not to sound elitist, but is that really a good thing? What sorts of people are going to be simultaneously not motivated to vote, and good at picking the best candidate?

It reduces the power of highly motivated special interest groups if everyone votes. Don't know how to weigh that against the possible downside you mention.

Most of the power special interest groups have doesn't come from their general voting patterns power in general elections.

Re: Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 100% voter turnout

#47

Post by ck2 »

Wouldn't insisting on motor-voter take it to near 90% ? Most states refusing motor-voter are controlled by the hard right.

Sure hope there is a plan to fund 100% more voting locations and booths.

Because Republicans have figured out a great way to kill voting when they simply just have to give in and let people vote is to defund voting locations.

Unless the plan is to just have everyone vote absentee but that allows for votes to be "lost".

Re: Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 100% voter turnout

#48

Post by delecti »

koenigdavidmj wrote: post #33
rhino369 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea myself, but I think we can guess based on the fact that democrats generally want more turnout and republicans generally want less turn out. That suggests that democrats and republicans generally agree that the 100% would benefit democrats.

That doesn't explain Washington State, where the Democrats didn't use their state-provided primary at all (all of their primary delegates were allocated by a caucus you had to attend) and the Republicans did (though only one candidate is running now, so it doesn't really matter). The Democrats made you physically get up on a Saturday and go, unless you had a valid excuse. Elections in Washington are by mail, so to vo…

That's irrelevant, because the turnout in-person among Democrats isn't comparable to the turnout via mail of Republicans.

Re: Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 100% voter turnout

#49

Post by [deleted] »

koenigdavidmj wrote: post #33
rhino369 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea myself, but I think we can guess based on the fact that democrats generally want more turnout and republicans generally want less turn out. That suggests that democrats and republicans generally agree that the 100% would benefit democrats.

That doesn't explain Washington State, where the Democrats didn't use their state-provided primary at all (all of their primary delegates were allocated by a caucus you had to attend) and the Republicans did (though only one candidate is running now, so it doesn't really matter). The Democrats made you physically get up on a Saturday and go, unless you had a valid excuse. Elections in Washington are by mail, so to vo…

[deleted]

Re: Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 100% voter turnout

#50

Post by ausjke »

whenever a local election comes up, the first thing I want to know is that who are running for what, and what's their key difference and if available, track records. A quick comparison chart/table will serve the purpose but I rarely if ever found that, hope someone will create a website like that for all, so voters can know the quick-facts before voting relatively easily.
Post reply on HN