Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

$1M VotePlz Sweepstakes

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 112 posts

Re: $1M VotePlz Sweepstakes

#41

Post by mkagenius »

alva wrote: post #9

Not a criticism! Replace benefitting party as you wish. It is interesting when these initiatives present themselves as non-partisan. If you target a demographic that polling suggests will go for your preferred party, plough tons of money to encourage them to vote, can it truly be described as non-partisan? edit: And if so, should they be obligated to disclose their preference and intention?

It is clear whom they don't want them to vote but what's wrong in that. They are not forcing anyone - just enabling them. They want them not to sit this one out as this could make them regret for not voting when there was a chance.

Re: $1M VotePlz Sweepstakes

#44

Post by colmvp »

rubidium wrote: post #27

"The 2016 US Presidential election feels like the most important one so far in my lifetime." -sama I'm the same age as Sam. But I must confess I don't see why he sees this one as the most important. Both candidates are terrible (for different reasons). It's quite damning of the entire political establishment. I just want to get through the next 4 years and hope that either party can finally find one good candidate.

Same. I'd argue the 2000 election was far more important especially given the creation of the PATRIOT act and the decision to invade Iraq, both of which were coincidentally voted for by one of the current candidates.

Re: $1M VotePlz Sweepstakes

#46

Post by peterbonney »

Kiro wrote: post #34
throwanem wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a lawyer, but as far as I know, the relevant statute would be 18 USC 597, which says: "Whoever makes or offers to make an expenditure to any person, either to vote or withhold his vote, or to vote for or against any candidate [...]" Which I strongly suspect is why the language around the offer universally refers to "check[ing] voter registration status". And I'm sure somebody or other's legal team has reviewed th…

> And I'm sure somebody or other's legal team has reviewed this language and signed off on it. Not really related to this but I think you would be surprised how often this is not the case. I've been involved in many big contracts where I've realized no actual lawyers have been involved at all.

In this case there's a lengthy terms and conditions document, clearly drafted by lawyers.

Re: $1M VotePlz Sweepstakes

#47

Post by gizmo »

alva wrote: post #9

Not a criticism! Replace benefitting party as you wish. It is interesting when these initiatives present themselves as non-partisan. If you target a demographic that polling suggests will go for your preferred party, plough tons of money to encourage them to vote, can it truly be described as non-partisan? edit: And if so, should they be obligated to disclose their preference and intention?

There are two parts to it.

First it encourages young people to vote. This is important because young people will be the most affected by policies enacted by the next president. This part is non-partisan, because it forces both political parties to take young people more seriously as a voting block.

Second it's clearly against Trump, because Trump's base consists of older white people with racial anxiety/anger. Young people lean democrat, but they don't get out to vote.

Re: $1M VotePlz Sweepstakes

#48

Post by lintiness »

gizmo wrote: post #30
gthtjtkt wrote: post #14

> No one able to vote in the US should be sitting this one out I disagree. People who haven't taken the time to thoroughly research the candidates should not be encouraged to blindly push a button, especially this year. Most of them will probably be persuaded by fear mongering or partisan mud-slinging. That's not democracy, it's just mob rule.

It doesn't take a lot of research to choose when one candidate is comically unqualified. The people voting is the entire point of democracy. Smart people and dumb people. Policy wonks and random button pushers. It doesn't matter, everybody gets one vote. That way whatever the outcome is, it reflects the will of the people. To oppose this is to oppose democracy itself.

he didn't oppose the right to vote; he said not everyone should vote. and please, just because you think we'd never have heard of hillary if her husband hadn't been president does NOT make her "comically unqualified". let's leave the politics to the sensationalist 24/7 "news" machine, mkay?

Re: $1M VotePlz Sweepstakes

#49

Post by gthtjtkt »

gizmo wrote: post #30
gthtjtkt wrote: post #14

> No one able to vote in the US should be sitting this one out I disagree. People who haven't taken the time to thoroughly research the candidates should not be encouraged to blindly push a button, especially this year. Most of them will probably be persuaded by fear mongering or partisan mud-slinging. That's not democracy, it's just mob rule.

It doesn't take a lot of research to choose when one candidate is comically unqualified. The people voting is the entire point of democracy. Smart people and dumb people. Policy wonks and random button pushers. It doesn't matter, everybody gets one vote. That way whatever the outcome is, it reflects the will of the people. To oppose this is to oppose democracy itself.

There are (at least) two comically unqualified candidates in this year's election.

Thank you for proving my point.

Re: $1M VotePlz Sweepstakes

#50

Post by lintiness »

09bjb wrote: post #38
d0lph wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know what they say, if you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart, and if you're not a conservative by 50, you have no brains.

I'll be stealing this one. Die-hard liberal at 20 but experience has pushed me irrevocably towards libertarianism.

libertarians are far more "liberal" than democrats.
Post reply on HN