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

451–458 of 458 posts

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

#451

Post by Apofis »

krisroadruck wrote: post #370
lewisl9029 wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's probably confusing to you because you don't understand that there are people who dislike Hillary and Trump in equal measures. I think either will be a complete disaster but seeing as how it looks like I have no alternatives I refuse to dignify the election by wasting my time voting between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. The idea of vote for Hillary because she is slightly less evil than trump or the reverse…

Precisely my point!

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

#452

Post by formula1 »

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…

I understand it can ethically makes sense, what is more/less difficult and what is more realistic. However, we dont live in a bubble. Groups are provably more powerful than individuals and, if you believe in evolution, an individuals rulers can effect who will and will not breed causing lasting effects over generations.

I can understand that you do not want to be part of something bigger and can rationalize it by focusing on real problems right in front of you. But simply by posting here you have already decided you wanted to give something to everyone else, namely apathy and the belief that nothing will ever change except your immediate surroundings. If you believe that ideas can go viral, you have enabled a large group to surrender. Are you ok with the only people who believe they can change the world to be the ones with ambition and hunger?

Changing the world, your rulers abd your life should never be seen as a hopeless endeavour. Once it has become that, we truly are nothing more than sheep and parrots.

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

#453

Post by formula1 »

sverige wrote: post #448
inanutshellus wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Educating the poor up to speed with modern technology doesnt require money? Who wants to keep me alive while I do this service? Who benefits more from this education, my government or me the individual?

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

#454

Post by etjossem »

cloudjacker wrote: post #125
burkaman wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it at all possible that the will of the people could influence change more often if more people were involved?

No, a representative sample votes. A shift in the demographics of voters influences change.

A representative sample doesn't vote, that's the problem. The people who show up tend to be white middle-aged homeowners. Youth voter turnout, for instance, is very low compared to the eligible population [1]

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio...

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

#455

Post by etjossem »

notahacker wrote: post #179
burkaman wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it at all possible that the will of the people could influence change more often if more people were involved?

Possible. I'd argue the reverse is more likely, given that people relatively uninterested in voting are disproportionately less likely to be partial towards a particular candidate or cause or otherwise interested in changing the status quo.

Reasons for not voting vary. Uninterested voters are common, but other factors (didn't like the candidates, forgot to vote, too busy, transportation problems, inconvenient polling place) show up too.

The Census has good data on this: https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/p20/577/... [XLS]

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

#456

Post by etjossem »

mordocai wrote: post #256
rjbwork wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I work at a startup and nobody went to vote, everyone has work to do. Indeed, everyone has work to do. It does not absolve us of our civic responsibility. I don't live in California, but would be surprised for anyone at a startup here in Atlanta to have significant problems taking a couple hours out of their day to go vote were they to want to. Apathy is a definite problem however.

The main problem is people who aren't allowed to take a couple hours off without being threatened with firing. Even if they are able to, they may get paid less which for someone in/near poverty can be unacceptable. Most retail and fast food workers are in this situation, for instance. Many of them will be working/commuting the entire time the polls are open.

California has tried to solve this very problem by requiring employers to provide 2 hours paid time off to vote on Election Day [1]. I'm not sure how good compliance is, or how many employees are aware of their right.

[1] http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/time-vote-notices/

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

#457

Post by rcheu »

I feel like an easy solution is to just pay people $20 when they vote so that it's no longer an irrational decision. People will find a way to register and vote if there's a financial incentive.

Part of the problem right now is that it's hard to convince someone to vote because it's not actually a rational decision. With very high probability, your voting action has no impact on your life, and it takes significant time. Make voting a rational decision, and we'd probably see more people doing it.

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

#458

Post by dang »

LionessLover wrote: post #417
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).

> It's sort of the train switch moral question. No it's not. You are stupid.

Personal attacks like this aren't allowed on HN. We ban accounts that do this. Please read the site guidelines and post civilly and substantively, only:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

Post reply on HN