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

441–450 of 458 posts

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

#441

Post by inanutshellus »

sverige wrote: post #432
formula1 wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Perhaps a positive move forward for you* would be to work on community projects or small, focused gov't sponsored projects rather than going as high-level as you had before. The assumption being that the more money you involve the more red-tape you get and the more impediments (safeguards) are in place to frustrate you (protect taxpayers)...

* (well, other than continuing disdaining politics and government, which seems to be treating you alright currently)

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

#442

Post by nommm-nommm »

debracleaver wrote: post #112
lujim wrote: post #67

Hi Debra, I've always been skeptical of these kind of "rock the vote" initiatives because I believe they motivated not by a overall altruistic love of democracy, but a motivation to sway elections towards the organizations favored political party. What are your thoughts?

I've worked with RTV for years and have nothing but great things to say about them. They, like Vote.org, are nonpartisan. I can speak to our motivations, however: we want to see 100% voter turnout and don't give a flying fig who you vote for, as long as you vote. We've been criticized by both sides of the aisle for not appearing to have a political stance, but fuck it: voter turnout is too important to waste time on…

Why? Why do you personally care what I do? Why do you think forcing someone to do something against their will is to be desired? What do you get from it?

Make voting easier and accessible for those who want to vote? Sure, great. Coerce and force those who choose to opt out? Unacceptable and unamerica.

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

#443

Post by inanutshellus »

xvedejas wrote: post #357
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.

shrug YMMV. Luckily, mine just opine loudly then on voting day say something like "My vote wouldn't matter anyway, so why take the time off from work?"

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

#444

Post by TheCoelacanth »

chimeracoder wrote: post #425
hackuser wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what are your thoughts about it, and how can it happen in America? I've seen every single proposal be rejected in congress. The Republican Party has, for decades at least, had a program of making it more difficult to vote. I'm not saying that to be partisan, it's just a fact (sometimes facts favor one party or the other, but we shouldn't ignore them, twist them, or try to create a false equivalence). I believe it's…

> In the last few years the Supreme Court said the Voting Rights Act was no longer valid That is not what they said. They did not overturned the VRA. What they did was overturned a section which labeled specific states and counties that were subject to increased scrutiny and protection, on the grounds that demographics have changed in the last 50 years, and that now that list is out of date and includes too many dist…

They did not overturn the VRA; they just overturned the part that allows the whole thing to be enforced in a timely manner.

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

#445

Post by dragonwriter »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #444
chimeracoder wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the last few years the Supreme Court said the Voting Rights Act was no longer valid That is not what they said. They did not overturned the VRA. What they did was overturned a section which labeled specific states and counties that were subject to increased scrutiny and protection, on the grounds that demographics have changed in the last 50 years, and that now that list is out of date and includes too many dist…

They did not overturn the VRA; they just overturned the part that allows the whole thing to be enforced in a timely manner.

> They did not overturn the VRA; they just overturned the part that allows the whole thing to be enforced in a timely manner.

Specifically, they overturned the preclearance requirement, which requires places that have been found to discriminate in the past to get clearance from the Justice Department before implementing changes to voting procedures.

This requirement was to prevent jurisdictions from implementing changes that have major deleterious effects on specific groups and then having one or more elections occur (and then official acts and laws passed shaped by the results of those elections) while the legal challenges work up through the system.

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

#446

Post by woodman »

e40 wrote: post #429
beambot wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Abstaining is a form of voting, regardless of whether you consider it "some BS idea."

You are just handing power to others, when you refuse to vote. It's that simple.

No, in that case they are taking power - you haven't handed over anything. It is not a distinction without a difference, "...consent of the governed." etc.

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

#447

Post by reddytowns »

e40 wrote: post #428
reddytowns wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is not "being a certain way" leads to not raising enough money to compete, and/or being ignored by the media. It's not an equation, but rather one gigantic shit show designed to stir emotion, bought and paid for by those who have money, and they give it to both sides.

And you are not using the only power you have. The shitshow is designed to get you not to vote. When fewer people vote, it's easier to control the remaining minority.

Do you really think that just getting enough people to vote is going to fix the situation?

It's like a 140 lb weakling being squashed by a 300 lb sumo wrestler and you're telling him to just squirm more.

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

#448

Post by sverige »

inanutshellus wrote: post #441
sverige wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Perhaps a positive move forward for you* would be to work on community projects or small, focused gov't sponsored projects rather than going as high-level as you had before. The assumption being that the more money you involve the more red-tape you get and the more impediments (safeguards) are in place to frustrate you (protect taxpayers)... * (well, other than continuing disdaining politics and government, which see…

Um, no. I work with individuals and people in my community to help others. Most issues that people really need help with don't need money so much as someone who will listen to them. That's the essential beginning point. How would it help to involve the government?

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

#449

Post by dcacaac »

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 want a test. Step one: Name 3 people in your primary and name 3 in the opposing party's primary. Who is your party chair? Who's in the majority in the house? Who're the senate majority and minority leaders?

I don't know those last two for sure. I don't really care about the minutiae of what happens in the morally bankrupt and corrupt US government, but I am politically informed. If I vote it'll be for Jill Stein. Should my vote not count because I failed this test?

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

#450

Post by fosco »

dragonwriter wrote: post #402
laxatives wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

correct.

If you are paying taxes you are paying for this system, by not voting, you are simply having money stolen from you to have other people do as they see fit.

pretending that your abstainment from voting is somehow going to do anything but give ignorant people more power is senseless for anyone who understands how business/government works.

Post reply on HN