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

431–440 of 458 posts

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

#431

Post by jakeogh »

burkaman wrote: post #164
jakeogh wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the point, it wont be safer. Software and it's hardware are inherently buggy (or worse) and that's not going to change any time soon. Hand counted paper ballots are by far the safest. http://www.handcountedpaperballots.org/documents/requirement...

But eventually, it will. I don't think we really disagree here, unless you think that widespread online registration will somehow cause online voting to inevitable happen too early. We tried electronic voting already, it didn't work very well, most states stopped doing it. When the technology gets better we will try again. Self-driving cars recently became a safe idea even though software is inherently buggy. Someday…

No, I really am saying electronic voting is fundamentally a bad idea, hence the the video explaining why.

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

#432

Post by sverige »

formula1 wrote: post #393
sverige wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was younger, I got deeply involved in local, county, and state politics. I even ran for office once, was treasurer for a congressional campaign, and was on county and state executive committees. I met governors, senators, presidential candidates, and one sitting president. I had a well-informed opinion on any issue you can name, and changed positions on many of them as I got older. What did I learn? When I got…

Though I respect your real life experiences have caused a rationalized apathy. I personally do not believe that inaction is ever the correct course of action. So, instead of voting what would you suggest? Attempt to grow a fourth party? Encourage watchdog mentality? Make sure politicians fear the people they represent? What do you suggest? Get fat on potato chips and hope the world falls apart in a humorous way?

It's not apathy, it's a realistic assessment of where my time is best spent. Instead of lying to myself that I have any influence on politics, I focus on providing and caring for my family and friends. This includes spending time and energy on the people around me, my work life, and planning next moves that I have some control over.

I spend very little time on "news" of any sort, only reading headlines a few times a week with a little more effort spent on things that affect my career. I've been living this way since 2000, and I have to say that it has paid off much more than any political involvement I engaged in.

The alternative is to work hard to become a player in the political game, the end result of which is becoming just another asshole politician / lobbyist / activist who is either chronically angry or on the power and money treadmill. There's more to life than that.

The real apathy is believing that you can make the world a better place using the machinery of politics, rather than making it better one person at a time with those you encounter in daily life. The latter is difficult, the former is easy.

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

#433

Post by sverige »

danieltillett wrote: post #422
sverige wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To address your first assertion, I am a citizen whether I vote or not. By not voting, I am consciously choosing not to be part of the political process, at least that part of the process where I vouch for a politician by giving them my vote. And I can't name a single person I want to associate my name with by voting for them.

I think you have a very unusual idea of what voting means. You are not vouching for a politician by voting for them nor are you associated with them in any way. All you are expressing is you rate them higher than their opposition.

You are literally assenting to their views. The word "vote" comes from the same root as "voice." You are speaking up and saying "yes" to them.

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

#434

Post by logfromblammo »

michaelkeenan wrote: post #202
logfromblammo wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Studies on statistical aggregations often show that a crowd can make a better guess collectively than any individual member. If you ask a crowd to guess the number of jellybeans in a jar, the people who are the worst overestimaters and underestimaters tend to cancel one another out, and the mean and median of all responses will be shockingly close to the actual numeric value. Therefore, my hypothesis is that reaching…

I used to think this way. The thing that changed my mind was learning how much people think the USA spends on foreign aid[1]. On average, Americans think 28 percent of the federal budget is spent on foreign aid, but it is about 1 percent. People base policy preference on their mistaken impression. When informed of the correct amount, the number who think America spends too much on foreign aid changes from 61% to 30%.…

To be more precise[0]:

  2013 US Budget                 ~= $3 803 300 000 000
  +- International Affairs        = $   52 018 676 000 ( 1.37%)
     +- State Operations          = $   17 702 825 000 ( 0.47%)
        +- Int'l Orgs             = $    3 386 331 000 ( 0.09%)
     +- Foreign Operations        = $   33 810 927 000 ( 0.89%)
        +- Bilateral Assistance   = $   21 134 577 000 ( 0.56%)
        +- Int'l Security         = $    8 791 500 000 ( 0.23%)
        +- Multilat. Int'l Orgs   = $    2 875 204 000 ( 0.08%)
        +- Foreign Banks/Funds    = $    2 548 553 000 ( 0.07%)
        +- Direct Food Aid        = $    1 533 859 000 ( 0.04%) [1]
        +- US AID                 = $    1 450 806 000 ( 0.04%)
        +- Independent Agencies   = $    1 258 585 000 ( 0.03%)
  +- US Dept. of Defense         ~= $  672 900 000 000 (17.7 %)
  Total Military SA+FR+UK+DE+JP  ~= $  283 500 000 000
  2013 AAPL total expenditures   ~= $  136 000 000 000
What people think of as "foreign aid" may vary. The budget covers everything from bed nets to bullets. If you count only spending on operations that most directly assist poor foreigners, such as US AID, Peace Corps, and UNICEF, rather than just writing checks to foreign politicians, militaries, and bankers, it amounts to about $7-$10 billion, or 0.2%-0.3% of the budget.

And nothing in the US budget takes up more than 25% of it. The top 4 items are, in fact, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, military, and debt service (6.5%!). Even if you count all military spending as some sinister form of foreign aid, you can't get to 28%. The problem there is not just being uninformed. Someone must be actively spreading misinformation--lying to the public. That's a much bigger problem than simple ignorance, and trying to restrict turnout to only "informed" voters is not going to help when people believe they are informed after hearing enough lies.

[0] http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/224071.pdf [1] paid to US Dept. of Agriculture

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

#435

Post by logfromblammo »

hackuser wrote: post #299
logfromblammo wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Studies on statistical aggregations often show that a crowd can make a better guess collectively than any individual member. If you ask a crowd to guess the number of jellybeans in a jar, the people who are the worst overestimaters and underestimaters tend to cancel one another out, and the mean and median of all responses will be shockingly close to the actual numeric value. Therefore, my hypothesis is that reaching…

Nobody was permitted to see the Emperor of China, and the question was, What is the length of the Emperor of China's nose? To find out, you go all over the country asking people what they think the length of the Emperor of China's nose is, and you average it. And that would be very "accurate" because you averaged so many people. http://www.textbookleague.org/103feyn.htm

The averaged length is likely to be close to the length of the median Chinese person's nose.

It would not in any way be accurate in terms of judging the fact that is the length of the Emperor's nose, but it would be the best possible guess China could possibly make based on the information then available to it.

You could as easily ask America how many grams of cocaine George W. Bush used while avoiding overseas military operations. And if you can ask that, you can also ask whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton would make a better U.S. President.

You don't vote on facts. You vote on opinions. And if you want to know "America's opinion", more responses will yield more accurate results.

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

#436

Post by nickff »

whamlastxmas wrote: post #426
nickff wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The evidence shows that these uninformed and biased non-voters would take different views on a variety of important issues if they were less biased and more informed. Essentially, the voters represent the 'enlightened' views of the citizenry.

>more informed by who, and in what way? Arguably the issue is people are informed, just by misleading information. Whether it be CNN, Fox News, reddit, or the Drudge Deport - they all have their own bias. By asking people be more informed, you're really just adding to their own bias and prejudices with the biases of a larger group of people. People tend to gravitate towards information sources that reaffirm their exi…

There is a great deal of statistical work that compares what people think and believe. Some of these works try to 'correct' for wealth and education, then measure the gap between the views of certain groups and what their view would be if they were more well educated. Other studies compare what people say in response to survey questions to objective truths, i.e. what are the branches of the US Government, who is the president, who is the chief justice of the supreme court. If you would like more information on how voters and non-voters differ, I suggest that you read some of the work on the subject; I cannot brief you on the subject in a few Hacker News posts, as there is simply too much information.

Citizens (, especially non-voters,) are ill-informed, biased, and lack any incentive to scrutinize their views, as the only change that could come about would be a painful realization that they have been wrong (which nobody wants). If you want to read a very revealing and well-written exposition on this subject, I recommend "The God that Failed" (edited by Crossman).[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_that_Failed

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

#437

Post by occsceo »

smnscu wrote: post #215

Related, here's Andrew Kim's reimagining of the US ballot: http://www.minimallyminimal.com/blog/america-elect

appears to be some progress until you scroll down to see the interview and survey results. the study is all 18-34 year olds. compare against the past 15 years of voter history age grouping on turnout/registration, not a representation of the majority of the voters. they essentially asked their 18 year old kids what car to buy for their 65 year old grand parents. "Easy, Lambo."

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

#438

Post by st3v3r »

kidcoach wrote: post #262
st3v3r wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"but the 'elites' would not be the ones a good solution would favor"

Depends on who gets to define what a good solution is. Given that our country has a huge history of, and still has a problem with suppressing and disenfranchising minorities and women, I am not willing to experiment with anything that's not designed to expand the vote to as many people as possible.

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

#439

Post by st3v3r »

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…

"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 better place."

This is the Primary. Not the actual election. Those people are free to vote for whoever they want in the general election.

"If a whole bunch of Republicans vote Democrat, it means that the Republicans have failed to do their job!"

In the general election, yes. Not in the primary. In the primary, it means that one party is trying to choose the candidate in the other party that would be easier for their party to beat.

" Saying you can't vote because of that is like a childish loser saying you can't play for the opposing team."

No, it isn't. Not when you realize what election you're talking about.

"My point is that such a decision should not be made and it segregates our democracy and makes it an "us vs them" fight, when in reality we're all in this together."

Your point doesn't make sense when a party is trying to pick it's own candidate.

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

#440

Post by st3v3r »

maxerickson wrote: post #346
chrisseaton wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Why should private clubs be determining who is on the ballot? If they had that role removed, they would still be able to endorse a candidate or agree to all vote for the same candidate or whatever.

"Why should private clubs be determining who is on the ballot?"

They don't. They pick two of the people on the ballot. Anyone has the chance of getting on the ballot if they aren't part of one of those groups.

Post reply on HN