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

161–170 of 458 posts

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

#161

Post by valvar »

burkaman wrote: post #99
laxatives wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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…

Why exactly is democracy the best, or shall we say "least bad", option? Have you, or has Churchill, evaluated all of the alternatives? And how does the belief that you air in your last sentence, that government should reflect all the people it serves, rhyme with your belief that the ideal (but admittedly in your opinion impossible) form of government would be one run by benevolent geniuses who always implement the right policies, even if they are not popular?

If I may, it does seem to me that qualitative and quantitative government are two quite distinct concepts - one might even go so far as to say that they are fundamentally opposed. Increasing voter turnout certainly increases the quantitative, most purely democratic, aspect of democracy - but what should someone who is more interested in the qualitative aspects of government have to say about that? And if one, as a supporter of democracy as the least bad option, recognises the inherent problems of popular government as a necessary trade-off, would it not make sense to try to mitigate as much of those to the greatest extent possible? I'm not sure if increasing voter turnout to absurd levels would be in tune with this latter category of mindsets, but I'd be curious to hear what you or others of a similar opinion think about that...

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

#162

Post by notahacker »

pjc50 wrote: post #118

I recently realised that one big advantage of compulsory voting is that it completely kills attempts to suppress voter registration or differential turnout. How do you plan on dealing with voter suppression and gerrymandering?

If you make voting compulsory for registered voters, you end up further suppressing voter registration (specifically suppressing registration of those in situations which leave them disproportionately unlikely to be able to get to vote and poor enough to see the fines as an issue)

If you ensure all voters are registered, then making the voting compulsory is redundant.

There is no advantage to compulsory voting, unless you believe that democracy is enhanced by diluting the votes of those with a preference for a particular representative with those that don't care.

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

#163

Post by dexterdog »

burkaman wrote: post #121
dexterdog wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My policy is when in doubt vote for the non-incumbent.

Ok, but wouldn't it be nice if usually you weren't in doubt, because there was a really easy way to educate yourself on all the candidates?

There are plenty of ways, but you should still have doubt. Take the two people running for the big seat right now. They're both saying what they need to say to get the biggest base. How does listening to what they say in this crap-storm educate me as a voter?

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

#164

Post by burkaman »

jakeogh wrote: post #160
burkaman wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's the point, it wont be safer. Software and it's hardware are inherently buggy (or worse) and that's not going to change any time soon. Hand counted paper ballots are by far the safest. http://www.handcountedpaperballots.org/documents/requirement...

But eventually, it will. I don't think we really disagree here, unless you think that widespread online registration will somehow cause online voting to inevitable happen too early. We tried electronic voting already, it didn't work very well, most states stopped doing it. When the technology gets better we will try again.

Self-driving cars recently became a safe idea even though software is inherently buggy. Someday the same will be true for voting.

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

#165

Post by partiallypro »

Not everyone should vote. This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but democracy only works with informed citizens. If you have a bunch of people that are not informed on the issue voting you're probably going to have an outcome that is awful. If you think politicians are bad now, just wait until the populists have the uninformed voting in high numbers (hey, that sounds familiar this year.)

To me, if you don't care enough to take time to vote as it is, you probably don't know the issues, and you probably shouldn't vote. Or maybe you do know the issues, and that's why you're not voting.

There are some cases where this is not true, such as someone having a weird shift; but that's what early voting is for, and that's why most states have legal paid time off for voting (up to 3 hours.) There's also mail-in ballots, absentee voting, etc. Democracy isn't always a good thing, to be frank; and it's undoubtedly why the U.S. was set up as a representative democracy rather than a pure democracy.

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

#166

Post by igorgue »

igorgue wrote: post #145
nommm-nommm wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would making election day a federal holiday increase voter turnout among anyone not working for the federal government. Plenty of federal holidays are working days for my company.

And plenty aren't... Many companies actually respect that every single company I worked at in the 10 years I've lived in America respected Christmas and New Year Day for example. I don't get your point, your situation is not the same as everyone else.

Do you guys know what "increase" means? Seriously...

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

#167

Post by burkaman »

dexterdog wrote: post #163
burkaman wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but wouldn't it be nice if usually you weren't in doubt, because there was a really easy way to educate yourself on all the candidates?

There are plenty of ways, but you should still have doubt. Take the two people running for the big seat right now. They're both saying what they need to say to get the biggest base. How does listening to what they say in this crap-storm educate me as a voter?

If you don't think listening to the candidates is useful then I guess I can't help you.

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

#168

Post by burkaman »

cloudjacker wrote: post #151
burkaman wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is a waste of energy. Yes it is quaint that people actually fought for this right, now logically, you should realize this is unnecessary duplication of efforts, and you have suggested that there should be no problem increasing that unnecessary duplication of effort. Some people, and their entities, are more influential than others and will always be. The popular vote has limited utility. This observation has nothi…

Ok, I think we understand each other. If you know of some study that shows the current voting population is representative of the total population, I would be interested in seeing it.

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

#169

Post by scottkduncan »

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…

If you are interested in political participation one place to start would be state and local races - you are more likely to find unconventional candidates at those levels that don't fit neatly with either party.

I also find it much more plausible that a third party would make inroads at the state and local level and build momentum from there, rather than a third party candidate emerging out of nowhere and taking the presidency outright.

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

#170

Post by vanattab »

Twirrim wrote: post #126
debracleaver wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

oh sure. there are a wealth of studies out there. it's hard to say why any particular person doesn't vote, but there are some trends that show when voting is easier, more people vote. Colorado, Washington and Oregon all moved toward vote-by-mail systems, in which a ballot is automatically mailed to a voter's house, and saw an immediate increase in voter turnout. Honestly, I'm waited to see the outcome of Oregon's aut…

My wife absolutely loves the mailed ballot approach in Washington (I'm not eligible to vote). Particularly because Washington appears to have votes of some description every quarter. The information booklet that comes with it has been great for kickstarting investigation into the candidates and their policies, and the various other proposals that are up for the vote (booklet has both for and against arguments from di…

Am I understanding you correctly? Is the washington state GOVERMENT mailing out ballots with a "pro/con" booklet or are they being sent out by some poltical nonprofit that is just printing off the standard ballot. It would disgust me if it was the election board compiling an "unbiased" pros/cons booklet that is included with every ballot.
Post reply on HN