Remind HN: Vote • Hacker News Board

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#181

Post by steveklabnik » Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 2:46 PM UTC

TheAmazingIdiot wrote: post #174

mahmud wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Estonia you can vote from almost anywhere if you have ID-card and working internet connection. By any chance, is your most recently elected president called "moot"? Is there or has there ever been a legal motion to rename the country to "4chanistan"? I think I might know what caused your recent problems, and it's not Russia or the EU.

No, you have it all wrong. Anonymous for President. Name change to /B/stonia I jest, I jest :) Still, I've heard of some cool governmental tech over there. Voting, as grandparent said, along with cell-phone payment of gasoline, painless e-banking with 2 factor auth, and other cool stuff. I also remember a pyramid that was built in that area that was on History International... I _think_ it was there, as it talked mor…

Yes, /e/stonia would be an... interesting place.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#182

Post by protomyth » Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 2:49 PM UTC

vaksel wrote: post #175

mseebach wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

the problem I have is that it's never a single state getting proportion. They always band together. So California with millions of voters become insignificant, when 10 states with combined total of 500,000 voters band together. That's why we have more subsidies for corn production than science research. I'm sorry, but 10 states in the boonies with no people, should not be able to dictate policy to California. Crap li…

Well, as a resident of one of the red states that has our budget under control (ND - surplus), I don't think California's problems are of our doing. Unions in California shouldn't dictate policy to other states (and it looks like the other states are going to foot CA's bill).

If we didn't have the current system, only about 20 cities would be campaigned in for the Presidency. Also, given the bill a NY Rep tried to pass a couple of years ago, we wouldn't be growing any crops in this country (eco bill - massive urban support). The House is where population matters and is the origin of every budget. The House is where the population is considered and the Senate is for state considerations.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#183

Post by colanderman » Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 2:55 PM UTC

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 your own logic, your post is flawed. Those who are more likely to heed it (i.e. those who know what they don't know) are presumably more well-versed on the issues than those who will not heed your advice (i.e. those who don't know what they don't know). Your post will do more harm than good by increasing the relative number of willfully ignorant voters, and by your own logic you should delete it.

P.S. The fact that it is reaching the limited audience of HN only strengthens my case, since HN readership tends to be more informed.

P.P.S. You also missed the possibility that elite voters have a different set of priorities than uninformed voters and would therefore misrepresent the majority of the populace.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#184

Post by gojomo » Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 2:55 PM UTC

brudgers wrote: post #139

michaelkeenan wrote: post #6

If you have an obligation to vote, then it's an obligation to make an informed vote. If you haven't attempted to evaluate your decision carefully and can't make an informed vote, please don't vote. Informed voting > not voting > uninformed voting Greg Mankiw has a column on this: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/11/election-day-approach...

> "Informed voting > not voting > uninformed voting" The idea that "the uninformed" should not vote is contrary to universal suffrage and has a long history of use for disenfranchisement. "Uninformed voting" is in the eye of the beholder (working definition: uninformed voters are those who both disagree with me and are outside my social group). One person's criteria for being informed may be awareness of specific pro…

The argument is not that the uninformed should be disenfranchised or in any way prohibited from voting. They should be allowed to vote.

But, if someone has enough self-knowledge to recognize that they are relatively uninformed, on a single issue or the ballot as a whole, they should abstain from voting on those portions of the ballot. By doing so, they delegate the decision to more-informed people.

The option to vote if they are later agitated or informed remains important -- but it doesn't have to exercised every time to serve its purpose of defending their interests.

People moved to vote at the last minute by a speech about their 'obligation', and deciding based on a few fleeting impressions from the last wave of rhetoric, make the process more random and superficial. They are the people most affected by negative ads, or simpleminded sloganeering.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#185

Post by CWuestefeld » Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 2:56 PM UTC

Jun8 wrote: post #162

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 understand that your comments are partly in jest (I hope!), but still the basic idea expressed in them is very misguided, dangerous and wrong: Misguided, because one can argue that everyone acts according to their beliefs, even an economics professor. You cannot talk about a clear dichotomy between those who vote on their belief and those who vote on "rational principles". It's wrong because voting is an inherent c…

I understand that your comments are partly in jest

Nope, 100% serious.

It's wrong because voting is an inherent citizenship right; it cannot be made...

I agree completely. In no way do I advocate any sort of qualification. That's a slippery slope the first step of which is incredibly steep.

What I'm advocating is that people self-select. I wish we could each reflect personally, and try to determine whether we really have the knowledge and understanding that's necessary to judge; and then honestly decide whether that the conclusion allows us to impose our thoughts on others.

The government enforces its policies, ultimately, by force and violence. If you're going to threaten someone (by way of the government) with force, you'd better be damned confident that there's a good reason to do so.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#186

Post by dctoedt » Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 2:57 PM UTC

cletus wrote: post #106

tjogin wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not against compulsory voting, but I'd just like to add that I don't think it's necessary in order to get a good voter turnout. We have voluntary voting in Sweden, and yet we get about 86% turnout. In the US, there are a number of problems with the voting procedure, too many to count really, I think facing and addressing those issues would be far better than making voting compulsory.

A few days ago there was a post on HN about how economists solved the problem of having prisoners live that were shipped from the UK to Australia 200 years ago: by giving the right incentive (paying for live prisoners at the other end and not just how many you load on in England). When voting is voluntary, certain groups are incentivized to encourage or discourage other groups from voting. This manifests itself as br…

Nit: Space Shuttle Challenger was in 1986; Columbia was 2003.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#187

Post by ugh » Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 2:59 PM UTC

axod wrote: post #147

ugh wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Monarchy?! Sure, you might be lucky and get a good monarch – but their son could be a total douchebag (like Wilhelm II, the gaffe-emperor who led Germany into World War I). I think that on the whole, elections are less random and more merit based than monarchies.

The difference isn't that great really though. If you look at the dynasties that win elections in the US - Bush, Kennedy, etc They may as well be a monarchy. Democracy typically only gives you 2 choices, and if they are both from dynastial families, it's pretty much a monarchy with the illusion of democracy anyway. > "Monarchy?! Sure, you might be lucky and get a good monarch – but their son could be a total doucheba…

You know what we should do? Determine officials by lot! That’s an age-old democratic instrument first (and only, I guess) employed by the ancient Athenians [+]. Now that I think of it, randomness actually lives on with the jury duty.

[+] As always with ancient democratic Athens several caveats apply, e.g. you had to be rather rich to be eligible for that.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#188

Post by mbreese » Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 3:00 PM UTC

ugh wrote: post #65

mbreese wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's written in the Constitution as to when voting should occur. Remember, this was written for the late 18th century, so doing anything on Sundays was generally frowned upon. Plus, changing something like this would be far more difficult than just giving everyone the day off. However, in this country there is a constant struggle between trying to let more people vote versus trying to restrict voting. Hence why a lot…

It’s not in the Constitution as far as I can see. Election day seems to be determined by an ordinary law.

And this is why I'm glad that we don't have to pass a test to vote. I'd fail that question. I blame my third grade social studies teacher. :).

The date is set by an act of Congress from 1845.

http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llsl/005/0700/07590721.tif

I think my other arguments still stand though...

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#189

Post by imeikas » Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 3:00 PM UTC

mahmud wrote: post #74

imeikas wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Estonia you can vote from almost anywhere if you have ID-card and working internet connection. It's really convenient and people are using this more and more. For example last elections 15.75% of votes were made using internet. Official statistics can be found from http://vvk.ee/voting-methods-in-estonia/engindex Also there are talks that they want to enable voting with mobile phones (there are already solutions w…

In Estonia you can vote from almost anywhere if you have ID-card and working internet connection. By any chance, is your most recently elected president called "moot"? Is there or has there ever been a legal motion to rename the country to "4chanistan"? I think I might know what caused your recent problems, and it's not Russia or the EU.

Hehe, luckily it's not that easy to get the ID-card.

You have to prove you are Estonian citizen (or become one) and the system is secure enough that people can trust their money and sign legal documents with this system.

Actually this is one weak point in the system. If some crook gets hold of your ID-card and your PIN codes, he can sign documents that are legally binding. (For example sell your house for a dollar etc.)

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#190

Post by Retric » Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 3:01 PM UTC

mast wrote: post #146

Retric wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have spent 4-5 hours on more than one occasion.

You're kidding. Why does it take so long?

The most obvious would be:

  Broken electronic voting machines.
  Higher than expected turn out resulting in a backlog.
  Showing up after work along with a huge group of people doing the same thing.

And I suspect some state level manipulation because my area (Northern VA) does not vote for the same party as the rest of the state. Other polling stations with 1/5th the population have the same number of voting stations.