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

Remind HN: Vote

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 391 posts

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#151

Post by mbreese »

axod wrote: post #36
mbreese wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the alternative? I can't think of one that is morally acceptable.

Personally I would prefer a monarchy, or some merit based voting system - eg You get a vote if you can demonstrate you have the understanding to make informed decisions.

A monarchy, when you have a good monarch isn't bad. However, you tend to end up with these bloody conflicts every now and again over who gets to be the monarch.

Merit might work, but it has the capability to discriminate against certain classes (even those who might otherwise make informed decisions).

I might be able to accept a system where you have to perform some level of service to the state in order to gain a vote. Something like military service, peace corp, teaching, being an EMT, etc... But then that starts to seem to Starship Troopers to me.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#152

Post by riffic »

michaelkeenan wrote: post #143
riffic wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

we had this system in the past; it was incredibly racist. read some history, chap.

rrc didn't deserve your condescending reply. Many policies were once implemented in a racist way. That isn't an argument against implementing them in a non-racist way. If you want to argue that the next implementation of voter tests will also be racist, you have not made the case.

I'm sorry you consider my reply to be condescending, as that is not my intention. I however find it discouraging when people refuse to learn from history's lessons.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#153

Post by shinkansen »

philwelch wrote: post #115
jdub wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plus, we vote on Saturday. Weekday voting is incredibly disenfranchising.

I voted on Saturday, too. Some of the more enlightened states in the US allow voting by mail.

In fact some States (e.g. WA was like this) only allow voting by mail. Potentially disenfranchising perhaps; how do I vote if I'm homeless?

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#154

Post by axod »

jasonlotito wrote: post #77
mkr-hn wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How will voting change the system if no candidate is willing to change it? And just to be clear, I didn't say I'm not voting or that I think the system is broken. I'm asking you to explain your position.

> How will voting change the system if no candidate is willing to change it? You make the assumption enough people want to change it. They don't. At least, not yet. Candidates aren't some otherworldly beast, they are citizens. If people really wanted to enact change, they could. You can't make a change alone. If enough people want to make the change, they can vote to make it happen. It's a really simple concept.

That's a silly argument.

You're saying that if a majority of people wanted change then they could vote for it, and it would happen.

But the change we've been discussing is the fact that 'majority want X' isn't a fair system in some peoples view.

If you believe, like I do, that "1 vote per person" is a flawed system and not good for the common good, there isn't really that much you can do.

The majority will vote for silly things that may well not be in their long term best interests. You can't trust the majority with anything.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#155

Post by mseebach »

vaksel wrote: post #130

personally I don't vote for 3 reasons: 1. my vote doesn't matter. I live in a 100% blue state, it'll go Democrat no matter what. So whether I decide to vote democrat or republican or green, my vote really won't matter. + the redestricting is always aimed at propping up small states. Why does California and Delaware both get 2 senators? 2. the system is broken, there are no good politicians. There is no incentive for…

> Why does California and Delaware both get 2 senators?

Slightly off topic, but I'll bite: Because democracy is much more about protecting minorities than ensuring the majority is in charge. If Delaware and other small states were only ever represented on the federal level in proportion to their population, only issues that Texas and California cares about would ever be taken up.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#156

Post by gyardley »

vaksel wrote: post #130

personally I don't vote for 3 reasons: 1. my vote doesn't matter. I live in a 100% blue state, it'll go Democrat no matter what. So whether I decide to vote democrat or republican or green, my vote really won't matter. + the redestricting is always aimed at propping up small states. Why does California and Delaware both get 2 senators? 2. the system is broken, there are no good politicians. There is no incentive for…

California and Delaware both get two senators because the United States is a federation of states, and when the Constitution was written many of the Framers argued that each state, being sovereign, should have equal representation. This has nothing to do with redistricting.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#157

Post by jimmyjim »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #127

Please, do vote if you understand the issues, and where the candidates stand. But otherwise, please DO NOT VOTE. Just because an idea makes you feel warm and fuzzy doesn't make it right. There are plenty of things in this world that are counter-intuitive, and if you're relying only on your beliefs , there's a good chance you'll get it wrong. If you've never taken a class or read a book on economics, please don't vote…

By virtue of suggesting the very specific texts that you have suggested you have in essence suggested voting for a candidate of a specific set of characteristics. I could very well in turn suggest another list of texts, to reach a differing conclusion.

Seems much like a Catch-22 game.

Therefore, please just vote. From your life experiences, what you believe in, what sounds good to you, or by whatever text is of your liking.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#158

Post by flatline »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #127

Please, do vote if you understand the issues, and where the candidates stand. But otherwise, please DO NOT VOTE. Just because an idea makes you feel warm and fuzzy doesn't make it right. There are plenty of things in this world that are counter-intuitive, and if you're relying only on your beliefs , there's a good chance you'll get it wrong. If you've never taken a class or read a book on economics, please don't vote…

I'm surprised this opinion has so much uptake. Ideally, we would all be highly informed. The reality however is that most of the voting public will not be, and your informed vote has no more weight than an uninformed one.

I don't like voting based on party, and I think the two-party system we have is inadequate, but the parties are there for a reason. I know that I'm voting for a platform if I vote for a Democrat or Republican or Libertarian, and that the candidate is going to represent that platform at least to some extent. In most cases, candidates' platforms are drawn directly from the party platforms, and you're not likely to find out much more about them until they've been in office for a while. Even then, what is knowable about a candidate is mostly in aggregate.

As to actual issues, these can be much less straightforward, but often it comes down to something as simple as, "do I want gambling at the mall?" (a current issue in my district). There are a lot of implications behind this - money coming in from out of state to protect other gambling interests, developers who want to build, etc. - but I still think it's valid for someone to vote for or against it for their own personal reasons. It is an expression of culture not just reason.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#159

Post by jbooth »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #148
jbooth wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, hopefully you're voting for Feingold. That guy's been one of the best senators of the last 20 years, honest, doesn't take any lobbyist money and a fiscal conservative, too, but he's in danger of losing to a guy who's entire platform is "I'm not a socialist" (Feingold isn't either).

I live in a different state, but I wouldn't be caught dead voting for Feingold. I know none of your local issues, but I know that he's co-author of the McCain-Feingold Incumbency Protection Act, which gags those interested in the issues from educating the rest of the electorate. Apparently Sen. Feingold believes that it's better to have an ill-informed electorate, and that we shouldn't be able to use our 1st Amendmen…

Sorry that you've been brainwashhed.

"Apparently Sen. Feingold believes that it's better to have an ill-informed electorate, and that we shouldn't be able to use our 1st Amendment rights to put a voice to our ideas, "

Let me get you on the record here -- you actually think the various "Americans for American Americans" groups are contributing to the debate? You think these groups deserve a voice? Let me re-enact a little play for you in 3 lines:

Lobbyist: I've got 5 million to spend, Senator. I can spend it with you or against you. We need our subsidies.

Senator: I'm going to do the right thing, not the corrupt thing.

Americans for American Americans: "Senator X supports wasteful government spending and death panels"

(Note that the lobbyist who was asking for money is now running ads accusing the senator of spending too much. That's ok, because it works.)

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#160

Post by Alex3917 »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #127

Please, do vote if you understand the issues, and where the candidates stand. But otherwise, please DO NOT VOTE. Just because an idea makes you feel warm and fuzzy doesn't make it right. There are plenty of things in this world that are counter-intuitive, and if you're relying only on your beliefs , there's a good chance you'll get it wrong. If you've never taken a class or read a book on economics, please don't vote…

Do people who have taken political philosophy 101 vote significantly differently than the rest of the population? I highly doubt it.
Post reply on HN