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

311–320 of 458 posts

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

#311

Post by davekinkead »

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 - (longish) question about the white labelling aspect of vote.org:

It seems like the implied value of vote.org is that increasing voter turnout can make democracy 'better' by making it more representative. This can only happen however, if the increase in or delta from voter turnout is itself representative of the community at large. If the increase in turnout is only from the extreme of one end of the political spectrum, then that doesn't seem to help democracy.

But if you are white labelling vote.org, then the organisations that use it will be far from partisan and therefore the delta from voter turnout wont be representative.

So if vote.org is used primarily by one side of politics, how does this help democracy? (assuming you can't show that side of politics is objectively better) And if vote.org is used equally by all sides of politics, how does the increased voter turnout change anything?

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

#312

Post by untog »

akio wrote: post #218
hackuser wrote: post #212

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. I haven't seen this suggested in the media.

It may not be intentional, but it is implied by the widely unbalanced attention given to the presidential election.

There's a tail wagging the dog argument here - in the US, the media are still a profit generating industry, so they're driven by what people want to watch/read. And that means the Presidential candidates. And, in 2016, Trump.

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

#313

Post by harryh »

baron816 wrote: post #236
hackuser wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The biggest reason people in the US don't vote ... It seems plausible, but is there some data to back up this theory?

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&e... There have been a number of studies on the relationship and they all seem to point to a positive correlation between PR and voter turnout.

positive correlation != biggest reason

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

#314

Post by davekinkead »

ravenstine wrote: post #217

Can anyone explain why everyone should vote?

Here are a few justifications of democracy and how increasing voter turnout would affect them:

1) Epistemic (democracy is good because it makes the correct choices). Increasing voter turnout doesn't do much because 10,000 randomly selected voters are sufficient to get the correct answers and increasing less competent voters would actually make it work.

2) Preference Satisfaction (democracy is good because it maximizes preferences). Increasing voter turnout is only beneficial if it improves the representation of voters to actual population.

3) Consent (democracy is good because we consent to it). Increasing voter turnout is only good if you deny those currently not voting are somehow not consenting. Higher voter turnouts make it easier for government to justify laws however - 'but you all voted for this!'

4) Transformational (democracy is good because participating makes us better people). Increasing voter turnout would be good regardless of how representative the new voters are of the population at large.

TLDR - there are many ways to justify democracy, increasing voter turnout will be good/bad/irrelevant depending on the justification.

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

#315

Post by woodman »

e40 wrote: post #239
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'…

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. Sorry, this is complete malarky. The calculus of voting is: vote for the least of two evils. If we had 100% voting and everyone did this, the politicians would get better over time, because they would learn that being a certain way would result in failure. The general poo…

Here are two shit sandwiches, one with onions and one with pickles. If you eat enough then the chef will eventually figure out your favorite kind of sandwich, but if you refuse then you are a selfish lazy jerk.

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

#316

Post by harryh »

debracleaver wrote: post #65
labster wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Debra, how would you feel about an Australian-style fine for failure to vote here in the U.S.? I assume Vote.org work primarily on technological ways to promote voting, but will it also deal with social structural or institutional ways to increase voter turnout?

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.

Compulsory voting would be a very clear 1st amendment violation and, hence, require a Constitutional Amendment.

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

#317

Post by dragonwriter »

slavik81 wrote: post #226
manachar wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voter turnout is higher in our presidential elections when a person's vote is generally worth less. People SHOULD be voting at the local level where their votes still matter quite a bit, but generally don't through an interesting combination of apathy and ignorance (e.g. few people actually know who their rep on the city council is and what their basic platform is).

Unfortunately, limited information is an inherent consequence of scale. There's much better media coverage of national issues. If I read The Economist, they may provide insight into the presidential candidates. They do not have news about my candidates for city council.

Theres much more media coverage of national issues, but better may not be a warranted conclusion.

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

#318

Post by chiaro »

laxatives wrote: post #247
danieltillett wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No that isn't a solution or comprimise I'm comfortable with. I'm not saying itst my responsibility to cut losses and do what's best for everyone. I'm saying this system is broken and I won't be a part of it.

>I won't be a part of it.

You are though, mate. You don't have a choice in the matter.

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

#319

Post by dragonwriter »

harryh wrote: post #316
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.

Compulsory voting would be a very clear 1st amendment violation and, hence, require a Constitutional Amendment.

Which provision of the first amendment is violated by compulsory voting?

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

#320

Post by dexterdog »

DrScump wrote: post #270
dexterdog wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

I went to school quite some time ago.
Post reply on HN