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

261–270 of 458 posts

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

#261

Post by dublinben »

samstave wrote: post #235
JacobJans wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the worst lies perpetuated by the media is that the presidential election is the only one that really matters. There are so many elections that have a direct impact on your life that you can participate in – state, city, and county election. These are not generally very partisan. Sadly, local elections often don't have enough options simply because there aren't enough politicians standing for election.

We need a TV channel/website that simply states the facts of the positions each politician holds, where they are from, when their elections are coming up and their voting record based on their supposed stance. There are SO many things that we can do. We invest supposedly in physical and technical infra, but never in political.... THAT is the revolution I want to see.

Every campaign website I have ever seen clearly explains the candidates position on all relevant issues. If you are looking for third party sources, you can also see the information compiled be VoteSmart.org and OnTheIssues.org.

Your state's Secretary of State office will list upcoming elections, and BallotPedia.org collects many of these.

The resources are already out there and available. It says something that you didn't even know that though.

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

#262

Post by kidcoach »

st3v3r wrote: post #248
kidcoach wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know politically informed minimum wage folks, and some really politically-flawed doctors and upper-level managers who spend so much time on their job or kids they don't care to read into politics. The "informed voters = rich whiteys" theory is just an assumption that infers people who want informed voters are often racist. Lets leave race out of such discussions and stick with how we could make an unbiased solution…

What if we don't think we could make an unbiased solution? What if the best solution is to simply get everyone to vote?

We won't know until we try. People are afraid of this option because they will be called elitist (see parent commenter), but the 'elites' would not be the ones a good solution would favor. If it fails then we fall back to where we are now.

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

#263

Post by nitrogen »

hackuser wrote: post #230
eanzenberg wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the stronger reason is your presidential election vote won't matter in most states where the contest is already decided. So a candidate winning 70-30 vs. 60-40 doesn't make a difference.

> I believe the stronger reason is your presidential election vote won't matter in most states where the contest is already decided. So a candidate winning 70-30 vs. 60-40 doesn't make a difference. Your vote, win or lose, also communicates very important messages: 1) 'I vote, and people in my community vote'. If you don't vote then why the hell should the politician care what you want? Does McDonalds care about the…

There are much better ways we could design systems for expressing these preferences than the relative proportions of a losing vote.

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

#264

Post by dexterdog »

DrScump wrote: post #223
dexterdog wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't most areas with lots of college students just see lines at the post office to mail in absentees? When I was in school nobody I knew was registered locally.

Why would one wait in line to drop something into a mailbox?

We're talking students. They need stamps and probably envelopes.

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

#265

Post by hackuser »

cloudjacker wrote: post #62
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…

I read this article and I still don't see the "why". It says "because there are big problems people want changed", this doesn't answer why you want to increase voter turnout. For example, in America, the will of the people only influences change when it coincidentally is aligned with special interest will. Every other time special interests are more influential than the voting public. This would undermine a theory th…

> the will of the people only influences change when it coincidentally is aligned with special interest will

I'm not sure what this means: If many people support something, is that a 'special interest'? Or won't there inevitably be a special interest supporting the same issue?

Also, do you have some research that supports this claim? I have seen research that lobbying's greatest power is to stop things from changing - i.e., to maintain the status quo.

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

#267

Post by choward »

danieltillett wrote: post #214
hueving wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

No by not voting you are implicitly giving them half a vote each. You don't get to opt out of the decision of who wins by not voting.

Let's say hypothetically your two options to vote for have the same motives but take different stances on relatively unimportant issues. The issues that actually matter aren't discussed. The only issues that are discussed are the ones that stir up people's emotions. By voting you are just supporting this system and saying everything is okay. "Oh, look. 90% voter turnout. Everything is great."

I'd much rather not have my vote counted then vote for someone I despise. "Hmm, 10% voter turnout. Something must be wrong."

Encouraging people to vote for a person they don't like just because they don't dislike them quite as much as the other person sets a very bad precedent.

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

#268

Post by hackuser »

ruthienachmany wrote: post #52
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…

What is your go to answer to people who say they don't vote because in the state they vote in, they believe the candidate they want to win will be elected without them making the effort of going to vote? I have a few I generally go with, but curious what you tend to use.

> What is your go to answer to people who say they don't vote because in the state they vote in, they believe the candidate they want to win will be elected without them making the effort of going to vote?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11715896

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

#269

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> Why exactly is democracy the best, or shall we say "least bad", option?

Because government is fundamentally, inalterably whatever the citizenry decides to accept. Providing feedback on what the citizenry is willing to accept through elections and aligning government with that minimizes the frequency and degree to which the feedback from the citizenry on what they are willing to accept is provided through violent and/or destructive means.

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

#270

Post by DrScump »

dexterdog wrote: post #264
DrScump wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would one wait in line to drop something into a mailbox?

We're talking students. They need stamps and probably envelopes.

All voting jurisdictions here use prepaid-postage mailers. Perhaps that is not the norm.
Post reply on HN