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

331–340 of 458 posts

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

#331

Post by Retric »

michaelkeenan wrote: post #220
Retric wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find more informed people are often less motivated to vote.

According to the sidebar in the Wikipedia article on voter turnout[1], increasing education leads to increasing likelihood to vote. 38% - No high school 43% - Some high school 57% - High school graduate 66% - Some college 79% - College grad 84% - Post-graduate Though, possibly, being educated isn't the same thing as being informed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout#Socio-economic_f...

There are barriers to voting that tend to crop up the less white collar your job. One sad issue is lines tend to be vastly longer in poor areas.

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

#332

Post by shifter »

atria wrote: post #142

This is a worthy goal, but is it a good thing to have 100% voter turnout? Every direct democracy has failed since the time of Socrates. After several generations, direct democracies turn into a mob with the majority voting themselves benefits while minorities become permanently disenfranchised. At least voter disinterest allows minorities the possibility of voting as a block and gaining influence in off-year election…

In a similar vein, Andrew Sullivan's article on this year's US election is a fantastic read:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny...

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

#333

Post by shifter »

Apofis wrote: post #301
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'…

Absolutely, honestly, I would turn out to vote for Bernie Sanders, but that is seeming to be less likely as time progresses. So, I won't be voting at all, since I could care less if either Clinton or Trump get elected. Clinton gets elected and the status quo doesn't change very much, Trump gets elected, and maybe---just maybe some people will begin to sit up and take action.

Perhaps you don't care about social issues but there is a world of difference between the presumptive candidates' positions. Do you care about the fate of women and minorities?

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

#334

Post by lewisl9029 »

Apofis wrote: post #301
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'…

Absolutely, honestly, I would turn out to vote for Bernie Sanders, but that is seeming to be less likely as time progresses. So, I won't be voting at all, since I could care less if either Clinton or Trump get elected. Clinton gets elected and the status quo doesn't change very much, Trump gets elected, and maybe---just maybe some people will begin to sit up and take action.

This stance I sometimes hear from Sanders supporters (and I'm one of them, though not a US citizen myself) completely baffles me.

Why would a Sanders supporter want to risk putting someone like Trump in office (through inaction)? Asides from maybe the anti-establishment aspect, Trump and his proposed policies spits in the face of everything Sanders stands for. Even if we ignore his own dangerous, egomaniac tendencies, having a Republican president in office with a supreme court nomination on the line could easily undo all the progress (however little) the US has made in areas like healthcare, marriage equality, minority rights, gun regulation, climate change, etc, and very possibly even regress on certain areas.

There's so much at stake in this election and a Trump presidency will be absolutely disastrous for not just the US, but the entire world.

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

#336

Post by danieltillett »

_asummers wrote: post #309
danieltillett wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Voting has to be a federal holiday before we can make it compulsory, I feel. Or we just mail everyone ballots like Oregon does.

Or you do like we do in Australia and hold the elections on a weekend :)

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

#337

Post by chrisseaton »

pixelatedindex wrote: post #302
st3v3r wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Additionally, the "closed" primaries vs "open" primaries are bullshit. As a citizen I should be able to go to a polling place, choose a candidate and get out." Depending on the state, though, it's the party choosing who the candidate they want to put forward is. So it should be that party's right to decide who gets to partake in that decision. I mean, would it make sense for a whole bunch of Republicans to come and…

>So it should be that party's right to decide who gets to partake in that decision. I mean, would it make sense for a whole bunch of Republicans to come and vote in the Democratic primary? It shouldn't matter if a Democrat is voting Republican or the other way around. People can change their minds, and should not be disallowed to vote if they find that the other party is doing a better job in making the country a bet…

But primaries are about political parties choosing who should represent them aren't they? Political parties are private clubs. If you aren't a signed up member of that political party why is it any of your business to have a say in who represents them?

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

#338

Post by danieltillett »

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.

Unless you give up your citizenship and leave the country you are part of the political process. Yes you might believe the system is broken, but by not voting you are saying you don’t care and you are effectively giving half a vote each to the top two candidates. I am sure this is not what you intended to do.

If all the choices on offer are so bad that you can’t choose a candidate to vote against then write in a candidate. In my experience it is very rare that both candidates are equally bad and you can’t choose the least worst option.

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

#339

Post by danieltillett »

chiaro wrote: post #321
danieltillett wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technical you don't have to vote here in Australia, you just have to put a ballot paper in the box at the polling station and have your name crossed off the roll. Of course most peopl (95%) do bother to vote once they are at the polling station. The best part of compulsory voting Australian-style is that it encourages people to show at least some interest in the political process since they know they will be voting.

Yep, people who complain about political apathy here in Aus have no idea how bad it gets elsewhere.

Yes we manage to keep a much large percentage of the population involved in the political process by having everyone turn up at the polling station. Sure we have a lot of low information voters, but we also increase the percentage of the population that pays attention to the issues - at least around election times.

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

#340

Post by danieltillett »

choward wrote: post #267
danieltillett wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

The alternative is the worse candidate get half your vote. If you really are indifferent to which ever candidate wins (i.e. they are both equally bad) then don’t vote. If you do think one is worse than the other then you need to vote to express this opinion.

Post reply on HN