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

401–410 of 458 posts

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

#401

Post by ilanco »

TylerE wrote: post #361
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.

Douglas Adams got this so right so long ago. Paraphrasing: "The job of the galactic president is not to wield power, but to draw attention away from it."

Also spot on from Douglas Adams.

Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

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

#402

Post by dragonwriter »

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.

As long as you don't leave, you are a part of it. If you aren't acting within your power to.mitigate the problems in it, you are not only part of the system, but a willing contributor to the problems.

If you aren't comfortable with the set of options, actively work to improve the set of options to one you are more comfortable with in the future. But, today, do the best with the options you have.

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

#403

Post by maxwelljoslyn »

enraged_camel wrote: post #400
luizlopes wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn't agree more. Local elections matter a lot. Especially when local elections in places like Seattle, WA are generating insane amounts of campaign money.

Local elections matter, but the direction of the country is determined at the federal level. That's why there's so much media coverage of it. That, and the Supremacy Clause. Whatever local laws you vote for are superseded by federal law. By definition, this means federal elections matter a lot more than local elections (even though local elections have a more immediate short-term impact on the populace).

I don't know much about law. If that's the case, how does legal marijuana work in Oregon, Colorado, Washington, and other legal states? Is it federally illegal but the feds just don't interfere?

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

#404

Post by alexnewman »

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'…

my vote doesnt count

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

#405

Post by vacri »

RijilV wrote: post #358
danieltillett wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It already is 'election week' in Australia. You can vote early, and you can postal-vote. The weekend vote is much easier to get the masses out voting, because most people don't have work (or school) to deal with on the weekend. At the last federal election I voted on the Wednesday beforehand, simply because I was passing by an early voting station.

And the queues at Australian voting stations on The Day aren't anywhere near as long as in the US. I've heard some horror stories where some people have had to wait 4+ hours (on a Tuesday) to vote in the US.

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

#406

Post by vacri »

LionessLover wrote: post #383
Thrymr wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A representative present for a roll call and explicitly abstaining is a form of voting. A citizen staying home on election day is indistinguishable from apathy.

I vote that your opinion is not one iota more valuable than that of any non-voter. People like you really should be forced to look into a mirror an hour each day.

How are you going to force Thrymyr to look in the mirror for an hour per day, if you can't even get someone out to vote? Who would be motivated enough to apply that penalty?

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

#407

Post by vintermann »

danenania wrote: post #307
Apofis wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In the case of Trump getting elected, you're assuming that we'd still have anything that resembles a democracy four years later and that the people who'd supposedly be ready to take action wouldn't be thrown in jail or disappeared or suppressed via collective violence. Resigning oneself to naked fascism with the idea that it could somehow lead to more progress down the line is quite the gamble. Perhaps it could work…

Trump isn't Mussolini. He's more Berlusconi, if you want to stay in Italy.

It's anyone's guess how Trump would actually rule, but throwing dissenters in jail would be admitting defeat on his only real core value, which is that he's so great that he always gets his way on charisma and "negotiation skill".

Other than that, I do agree that "it must get worse before it can get better" is bad policy, since the former is usually a lot more reliable than the latter.

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

#408

Post by beedogs »

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.

> I won't be voting at all, since I could care less if either Clinton or Trump get elected.

That's a pretty ignorant attitude.

The next President will be appointing 2-3 SCOTUS judges and a slew of Federal judges. You're totally cool with letting Trump pick those people?

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

#409

Post by turkeysandwich »

maxwelljoslyn wrote: post #403
enraged_camel wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Local elections matter, but the direction of the country is determined at the federal level. That's why there's so much media coverage of it. That, and the Supremacy Clause. Whatever local laws you vote for are superseded by federal law. By definition, this means federal elections matter a lot more than local elections (even though local elections have a more immediate short-term impact on the populace).

I don't know much about law. If that's the case, how does legal marijuana work in Oregon, Colorado, Washington, and other legal states? Is it federally illegal but the feds just don't interfere?

Yes, that's exactly the situation.

Hopefully the federal government deschedules marijuana soonish.

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

#410

Post by laxatives »

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.

No it really isn't. This is some very basic math that you are getting completely wrong for the sake of an argument. I'm not increasing either candidates popularity by not voting. If anything, I'm implicitly decreasing both of their popularities.
Post reply on HN