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

191–200 of 458 posts

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

#191

Post by JumpCrisscross »

baron816 wrote: post #156

The biggest reason people in the US don't vote is because they don't have enough options so they never get to choose people they really care about. Plus, no individual vote matters. This all has to do with our winner-take-all elections. Countries with proportional representation have much higher voter turnout rates (often in the 80-90% range). That's because you get to vote for the person or party you want, and they'…

Relatively newly-minted American here. A unified election calendar and ballot database would be helpful.

The number of local (especially community budgeting, judicial and special district) elections I've missed out of ignorance, despite checking New York City's Board of Elections website, is nuts. Furthermore, there seems to be an expectation that voters blindly vote along party lines. Almost every election there will be a list of uncompetitive judicial runs I've never heard of, and so had no time to do any research on. The result, for those line items, is me leaving them blank.

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

#192

Post by notahacker »

tehwebguy wrote: post #172
pjc50 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK increased postal voting, and found greatly increased fraud: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26520836 I'd be concerned that some of the increased turnout aren't real voters...

That article is just the opinion of Richard Mawrey QC. Here is the Electoral Fraud Review report from the Electoral Commission in 2014. Mawrey seems to strongly disagree with the findings of the report. http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file...

The Electoral Fraud Review report concludes that banning postal voting (in specific areas or altogether) would be a "disproportionate" response to allegations of voter fraud.

It also quite explicitly states that limiting postal votes would reduce the risk of voter fraud (p34) and acknowledges some evidence of systematic voter fraud in some regions of the UK exists.

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

#193

Post by danieltillett »

baron816 wrote: post #156

The biggest reason people in the US don't vote is because they don't have enough options so they never get to choose people they really care about. Plus, no individual vote matters. This all has to do with our winner-take-all elections. Countries with proportional representation have much higher voter turnout rates (often in the 80-90% range). That's because you get to vote for the person or party you want, and they'…

Countries with compulsory voting [1] mange to get this even higher without having proportional representation.

1. At least in Australia we have compulsory registration and compulsory visiting the polling station on the Election Day - if you don't want to vote you don't really have to.

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

#194

Post by jeremyt »

debracleaver wrote: post #106
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…

Jim, shenanigans is the word that comes to mind for me as well. I've yet to meet this mythical "apathetic American" that people talk about, but I've met tons of people who were prevented from voting by administrative incompetence (at best) and what appeared to be deliberate attempts to prevent citizens from casting ballots. Here's an fun example: 7 out of 9 of the states that were prohibited from changing their votin…

You've never met an American apathetic about voting? Are you from a foreign country?

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

#195

Post by hueving »

danieltillett wrote: post #188
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…

Stop voting for someone and start voting against someone. Pick the least worst candidate and give them your vote.

It's sort of the train switch moral question. If you hate them both but hate one slight more, voting for the lesser hated one makes you morally responsible for the shit they cause in some peoples' view (as opposed to being a bystander).

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

#196

Post by notahacker »

nommm-nommm wrote: post #101
debracleaver wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

labster, compulsory voting would be amazing in the US. i might be in the minority here, but i consider voting a duty, not a right per se.

Amazing for who exactly?

The people collecting the fines, and possibly the None of the Above Party

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

#197

Post by burkaman »

valvar wrote: post #161
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…

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 ri…

Well, you've raised some questions that I think are much bigger than an HN comments section, and I think there are many books and essays that will give better answers than I ever could.

If you are interested in mitigating the issues of high voter turnout by discouraging turnout, you are not a supporter of democracy. I don't say that as a value judgment, just by definition, democracy means everyone voting for a government that reflects the whole population.

If you support democracy, then you should support other efforts to solve these problems. Improve education to increase voter quality. Design the government so some crucial positions are somewhat shielded from popular opinion (judges, generals, etc.). Modify term limits to protect politicians from potentially unpopular decisions. I don't know, I'm sure there are plenty of other ideas. We could ask Belgium and Turkey and Sweden what they do to combat the threat of irrational and uneducated voters.

I have not evaluated all the alternatives to democracy, but I would say history has. That's not a perfect answer, but in practice democracy is clearly at least as effective as any other government system, and by many measures clearly the best option.

When I say that a benevolent genius would be better, I don't think that contradicts my other points because all real governments are run by humans, and all humans are flawed. But when a dictator or a small group of ruling elites screws up, they have incredibly strong motivations to hang onto power anyway. This is a bad thing. In an ideal democracy, there is no long-term way for any one person or group of people to remain in power unless they govern in a way that benefits their whole country. I don't think this is true for any other system of government.

Finally, if you don't consistently make decisions that your people support, they will overthrow you. It doesn't matter if you know what's best for them. There is no point in trying to design a government that doesn't reflect the people, because it won't last, regardless of how great its policies are.

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

#198

Post by simantel »

vanattab wrote: post #170
Twirrim wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The government mails out the booklet, but all of its contents are submitted by various "interested parties," and are labeled as such.

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

#199

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> 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?

In most places in the US, there are plenty of downballot elections, many of which are nonpartisan. There are also ways to be involved in the selection of party nominees (including, but not limited to, party primaries, which are in many places open to both members of the parties and those in no party, and in some places you can vote in primaries irrespective of party. Or, in California -- aside from Presidential elections -- the "primaries" are non-partisan first-round election from which the top two vote-getters proceed.)

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

#200

Post by dta5003 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #191
baron816 wrote: post #156

The biggest reason people in the US don't vote is because they don't have enough options so they never get to choose people they really care about. Plus, no individual vote matters. This all has to do with our winner-take-all elections. Countries with proportional representation have much higher voter turnout rates (often in the 80-90% range). That's because you get to vote for the person or party you want, and they'…

Relatively newly-minted American here. A unified election calendar and ballot database would be helpful. The number of local (especially community budgeting, judicial and special district) elections I've missed out of ignorance, despite checking New York City's Board of Elections website, is nuts. Furthermore, there seems to be an expectation that voters blindly vote along party lines. Almost every election there wil…

Ballotpedia helps: https://ballotpedia.org/Main_Page
Post reply on HN