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

131–140 of 458 posts

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

#131

Post by igorgue »

izacus wrote: post #117
igorgue wrote: post #114

I have a theory that since that the USA doesn't make election day a federal holiday is one of the major factors the working class of america is not voting, usually it takes too long to vote, and it's not paid for employees, especially blue collar ones. I wonder what are your thoughts about it, and how can it happen in America? I've seen every single proposal be rejected in congress.

Hmm, here the elections are on sundays because of that. USA votes on workdays?

That's EXACTLY my point, I'm from the "third world" and our election is on a Sunday and Monday is off for everyone, elections are a celebration, it should be a very important moment to everyone, enough to get so drunk the day after :-). It's so confusing living in the USA and looking at so much justified apathy for the political environment.

What people here would never understand (and this is due being mostly white nerdy dudes here) is that it's so hard to get time off work when you're a blue collar guy, and even though it's paid off in some states (California for example pays for 2 hours of work that day) it's not enough. And it's stated by many companies that your work is more important, especially since nobody goes to vote anyways.

I work at a startup and nobody went to vote, everyone has work to do. I cannot skip a "lunch meeting" cause I don't have "lunch meetings".

And finally, I don't want to keep beating the dead horse but whatever, Bernie Sanders reintroduced the concept and hasn't being enacted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Day_(United_States)

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

#132

Post by burkaman »

cloudjacker wrote: post #125
burkaman wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it at all possible that the will of the people could influence change more often if more people were involved?

No, a representative sample votes. A shift in the demographics of voters influences change.

Do you know of any evidence that a representative sample votes?

Even if that's true, I think 100% voting is a worthwhile goal, because it removes any doubt. If voting is already perfectly representative, then nobody should have a problem with this initiative, because it would change nothing.

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

#133

Post by ggggtez »

laxatives wrote: post #61
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…

Maybe this is or isn't non-partisan, but here's a shot: I'm 25 years old. I've never voted and never will vote as long as there is a two party system. There has never been a situation where I can agree with either party or individual enough to support them in an election. How do you intend to get people like me to vote? Also, if you did you get everyone to vote, wouldn't every vote turn in to a popularity contest? In…

So, you're asking if democracy is a popularity contest? Are you suggesting it's not?

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

#134

Post by nxzero »

100% voter turnout assumes that not voting is a not an meaningful expression of someone's right to vote. Unless there's option to express this within the voting system, there will always be voters that don't vote.

Second, if it's safe enough to bank and file taxes online, it safe enough to at least take an unofficial, but publicly published count online; people could for example update their vote during the run up to the official election.

Some countries have had penalties for not voting. Unclear if this helps, or hurts, the system.

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

#135

Post by maxerickson »

Retric wrote: post #113
burkaman wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>wouldn't every candidate attempt to win their elections by appealing to the lowest common denominator? I think that's sort of how democracy is supposed to work. Politicians win when they can convince more people than anyone else. It's like that famous quote: “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others”. Yes, everything would be better if countries were run by benevolent geniuses who always…

One of the more interesting ideas I have rarely seen in fiction is an actual benevolent and wise AI taking over. Closest is probably the Culture novels which shows up as a very odd society.

It's basically the theme of Asimov's later works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Daneel_Olivaw#The_Foundatio...

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

#136

Post by hnamazon123 »

cloudjacker wrote: post #102
hnamazon123 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The successes of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump would seem to contradict your thesis.

It doesn't contradict the thesis.

I suppose the lizard people do in fact support Sanders and Trump.

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

#137

Post by burkaman »

jakeogh wrote: post #124
burkaman wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is about voter registration, it has nothing to do with electronic voting.

I realize that, but all to often bad ideas are implemented incrementally. Online registration is an obvious step along the way. Next up: Internet ID (for "secure" online registration).

Well there are a bunch of comments from Debra Cleaver in this thread that make it clear that she doesn't trust online voting yet. But yes, this is an obvious step along the way. Eventually we will get to a point where online voting is practical and safer than physical voting.

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

#138

Post by sbuttgereit »

jimrandomh wrote: post #63

There's a very important reason to do this which no one has brought up. US elections have a lot of vote-suppression shenanigans; in some noteworthy cases (including the 2000 Presidential election), fraudulently removing voter registrations, understaffing and obstructing poll locations changed the outcome. This sort of thing becomes much more difficult to execute and much more difficult to get away with if there's an…

Put a gun to people's head to vote? I can think of few things more morally reprehensible than that. An individual should determine how, and if, they participate in civic life for themselves. The view that sees individuals as simply so much chattel labor existing for the benefit of whichever bureaucrats running the state at a given moment is simply unsupportable by any sort of real logic. To give you warm and fuzzies that vote-suppression did not occur is insufficient cause to demand that I participate in a system that, where I live, has no effective choices in any election cycle and frequently poses questions which simply should not be open to democratic opinion at the get go.

Your view is also terribly naive. If you get your way, what prevents the "shenanigans" from simply moving to another part of the process, say before the vote? Also, I would simply turn in a blank or random ballot because playing along with the sham of legitimizing the outcomes of questions where there is no choice is not tenable: do we stop secret balloting to prevent my antics? Do we evaluate the votes I make to determine whether or not I'm being a good citizen?

The big lie of much of "democracy" is, as a magician once put it, "When I cut the cards, I let you glimpse a few different faces. You conclude the deck contains 52 different cards (No. 1—Pattern recognition). You think you’ve made a choice, just as when you choose between two candidates preselected by entrenched political parties (No. 7—Choice is not freedom)."

Your proposal simply puts the threat of force to those that would not otherwise play the charade.

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

#139

Post by Spivak »

masudhossain wrote: post #29
bpodgursky wrote: post #6

I'd rather have 100% turnout by the 10% who are actually informed about the issues and candidates.

Group A: Group B isn't informed. If they were, they would vote for Group A. Group B: Group A isn't informed. If they were, they would vote for Group B.

Group C: Group A and Group B completely miss the point, their choice is meaningless until Issues 1, 2, and 3 are addressed.

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

#140

Post by darpa_escapee »

igorgue wrote: post #114

I have a theory that since that the USA doesn't make election day a federal holiday is one of the major factors the working class of america is not voting, usually it takes too long to vote, and it's not paid for employees, especially blue collar ones. I wonder what are your thoughts about it, and how can it happen in America? I've seen every single proposal be rejected in congress.

Polls close very early. Good luck getting there on time if you work far from your district.
Post reply on HN