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

351–360 of 458 posts

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

#351

Post by DSingularity »

inanutshellus wrote: post #345

I'm likely to be flamed out of existence for saying this, but I'm against 100% voter turnout. A shocking number of people in my social circle get their political opinions by intuition. Never do they watch a debate, nor do they have any idea who the contenders are. When the primaries were running in my home state I asked several of my friends about their opinions and most of them only knew one person from each party t…

We need to provide the accessible information then mandate the vote. I am sure a short ten to twenty minute video can sum up the critical issues for each candidate. Then ask them to vote.

We cant throw out people under the bus for not being equipped to make informed choices just because their primary source of information is shared content in social media. Let's fix that then make voting easy. Democracy.upgrade()!!

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

#352

Post by [deleted] »

inanutshellus wrote: post #345

I'm likely to be flamed out of existence for saying this, but I'm against 100% voter turnout. A shocking number of people in my social circle get their political opinions by intuition. Never do they watch a debate, nor do they have any idea who the contenders are. When the primaries were running in my home state I asked several of my friends about their opinions and most of them only knew one person from each party t…

[deleted]

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

#353

Post by awt »

inanutshellus wrote: post #345

I'm likely to be flamed out of existence for saying this, but I'm against 100% voter turnout. A shocking number of people in my social circle get their political opinions by intuition. Never do they watch a debate, nor do they have any idea who the contenders are. When the primaries were running in my home state I asked several of my friends about their opinions and most of them only knew one person from each party t…

The only people whose time it is worth to research candidates is that of those who are paid to do it, those being lobbyists. What economic sense does it make for any individual voter to spend the weeks and months it would take to have any idea what all of the candidates that might be running might think on even a small number of major issues?

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

#354

Post by nathancahill »

inanutshellus wrote: post #345

I'm likely to be flamed out of existence for saying this, but I'm against 100% voter turnout. A shocking number of people in my social circle get their political opinions by intuition. Never do they watch a debate, nor do they have any idea who the contenders are. When the primaries were running in my home state I asked several of my friends about their opinions and most of them only knew one person from each party t…

I share the same perspective, but draw a different conclusion. Instead, educate the electorate, the first step of which is reversing Citizens United. Then, make voting as easy as signing up for Facebook (whether that means online or mail-in voting). An informed, active electorate is the single most terrifying thing to the Establishment.

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

#355

Post by bobbles »

inanutshellus wrote: post #345

I'm likely to be flamed out of existence for saying this, but I'm against 100% voter turnout. A shocking number of people in my social circle get their political opinions by intuition. Never do they watch a debate, nor do they have any idea who the contenders are. When the primaries were running in my home state I asked several of my friends about their opinions and most of them only knew one person from each party t…

Coming from Australia where we have mandatory voting, you're missing one of the biggest benefits.

When people are forced to vote, the parties HAVE to accommodate that not only their 'die hard fans' are going to get them through the election.

It leads to far less extremist views from the parties, or if they are extremist, they often temper some of the points later to ensure they don't have a huge backlash during the election to their policies.

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

#356

Post by avivo »

yompers888 wrote: post #245
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.

Parent might be saying the media supports this fallacy by the amount of coverage given. With the huge number of resources available online for information, I would suggest that the perception of media as only covering presidential elections means that you need to work a little harder and find news sources that give you more valuable content. And if your desired news source doesn't exist, think about making it. For ex…

That's a really great story. I'm curious if this guy gets paid at all for this, if he just does it in addition to a day job, and perhaps family, etc. Can you share the link to his page?

I'm also also curious if there (ever) was a town newspaper.

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

#357

Post by xvedejas »

inanutshellus wrote: post #345

I'm likely to be flamed out of existence for saying this, but I'm against 100% voter turnout. A shocking number of people in my social circle get their political opinions by intuition. Never do they watch a debate, nor do they have any idea who the contenders are. When the primaries were running in my home state I asked several of my friends about their opinions and most of them only knew one person from each party t…

It seems my friends who vote on intuition are the ones likely to already vote -- by getting higher turnout you might actually reduce their proportion of the vote. Don't shoot yourself in the foot on this one.

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

#358

Post by RijilV »

danieltillett wrote: post #336
_asummers wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

You've never been to a bar/coffee house/grocery store/etc on a weekend? Lots of people work the weekend, often it is those who are paid less and have more rigid schedules. Also you run into religious days where some are not able to perform work.

Honestly it is a hard one to mandate as a single few hour window on a single day. Someone has to be working at hospitals for example.

Maybe it should be election week

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

#359

Post by nommm-nommm »

dragonwriter wrote: post #326
harryh wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom of speech.

Requiring you to show up at a particular place and put a pair in a box, with the option to actually mark something on it (Australian style mandatory voting) hardly violates freedom of speech.

Sounds like coercion to me.

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

#360

Post by caseysoftware »

nathancahill wrote: post #354
inanutshellus wrote: post #345

I'm likely to be flamed out of existence for saying this, but I'm against 100% voter turnout. A shocking number of people in my social circle get their political opinions by intuition. Never do they watch a debate, nor do they have any idea who the contenders are. When the primaries were running in my home state I asked several of my friends about their opinions and most of them only knew one person from each party t…

I share the same perspective, but draw a different conclusion. Instead, educate the electorate, the first step of which is reversing Citizens United. Then, make voting as easy as signing up for Facebook (whether that means online or mail-in voting). An informed, active electorate is the single most terrifying thing to the Establishment.

US schools can't teach everyone to read, expecting them to be able to effectively teach complex topics that involve nuance - let alone opinions - is wishful thinking.
Post reply on HN