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

201–210 of 391 posts

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#201

Post by jozo »

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 think you should vote, even if you don't seem to understand what representation[1] means. You also seem to only refer to liberals, but at the same time you say people shouldn't vote? I thought individual freedom and equal rights was a core principle in liberalism, but I guess you are only counting positive freedom.

If you really believe that people shouldn't have a say in elections based on your criteria, you should at least ask them to actively do so by casting a blank vote. Otherwise your motives might be misinterpreted as trying to demoralize people who don't share your views from voting.

And as someone once said: "It ain’t so much the things we don’t know that get us into trouble. It’s the things we know that just ain’t so"

Not necessarily true just because someone said so, but I do agree with the point being made.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_(politics)

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#202

Post by Retric »

vaksel wrote: post #150
Retric wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who you vote for is less important than the fact you vote. EX: Medicare is a direct result of a high percentage of older people voting. Even if you think Medicare is a bad idea, it’s really hard to get elected if you piss off the elderly.

voting is pointless until we get run off elections. 3rd parties that would have long ago become prominent in U.S. with runoff elections are still stuck with less than 1% of vote, because the public isn't voting for their best interests, but are instead forced to vote to stop the other guy from getting power. the democrats of today, are the republicans of just 10 years ago...and they get called socialists by the curre…

In our system voting is less about picking the winner than scaring the winner into considering your opinion. Democrats in Red states are aften more conservative than Republicans in Red states.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#203

Post by kgermino »

paradoja wrote: post #26
mbreese wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Option B would be pretty interesting, and might provide a decent incentive for people to vote. However, if people aren't likely to vote anyway, why would they care how much representation they have in Congress? We effectively do have a "none of the above" option: don't select anyone and still cast the ballot. However, it would be better if there was an explicit "No vote" option. The biggest problem with voting not be…

«The biggest problem with voting not being mandatory is that a lot of people don't have the opportunity because they can't get off work. If you made voting mandatory (or at least made election day a paid holiday), this impediment might be alleviated.» An alternative, as it's done in Spain, is to give everyone the right to leave their jobs in order to vote. To alleviate things for businesses, all elections happen on S…

In Illinois at least employers are required to allow employees to take two paid hours off at the beginning or end of their shift to vote. Also there's "no excuse" absentee vote by mail and early voting available throughout the state.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#204

Post by bendmorris »

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…

This is why the federal government should take a smaller role on most issues. This kind of interstate bullying only happens because states' rights have eroded. No state should dictate policy to any other unless it's truly an interstate issue.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#205

Post by jbooth »

orangecat wrote: post #191
jbooth wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where were you guys when Medicare Part D passed? It's way worse for the deficit, and was a way bigger spending bill. Oh, wait, that was a Republican.. I get it.. This is how Rome fell - if beating your domestic enemies is more important to you than improving the country, you are hurting the country.

Where were you guys when Medicare Part D passed? Libertarians were loudly protesting. To no effect of course, because Republicans were behind their guy and Democrats were primarily complaining that it wasn't expensive enough. if beating your domestic enemies is more important to you than improving the country, you are hurting the country. I agree completely. Please mention that to the President if you run into him: h…

No, democrats were primarily complaining that it was outrageously expensive, budget busting, and didn't even do any good because all of the money went straight to the drug companies (see my above comments on lobbyists).

RE: Obama, you must be kidding. The man is a born compromiser, the problem is that Republicans haven't been willing to compromise on anything. They voted against their own deficit commission, for crying out loud, after Obama decided to support it.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#206

Post by thenduks »

jdub wrote: post #56
DeusExMachina wrote: post #9

I don't know how laws and culture are in the USA, but in my country (Italy) vote is not an obligation. Vote is a right, and a hard earned one. It is also considered a civil duty. But never an obligation. The choice not to vote is also an expression of one's idea: that he does not believe in any of the politicians, or in the system as a whole. Lack of votes is also a measure on how much people believe in politicians.…

No, choosing to not vote is choosing to not express your idea. (If you don't believe in the system at all, do not make use of it at all -- and we don't see many people actually doing that.)

You're right. Personally in the case where I don't want to vote for anyone (most of the time) I go down to the booth and 'ruin' my ballot. The number of ruined ballots is sometimes counted and sometimes not, but at least the effort is made and it's harder for someone to argue that you're just too lazy to vote.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#207

Post by CWuestefeld »

mcantelon wrote: post #192
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…

>If you've never taken a class or read a book on economics, please don't vote. ... If you've never taken a class or read a book on political philosophy, please don't vote. If you're an elitist academic that thinks knowledge about how the world works can only be garnered via institutionalized knowledge, please don't vote. If you're willing to recommend that lower classes, made up predominantly of marginalized races, o…

Suppose that I go into the voting booth with a pair of dice, and use them to decide who to vote for. Am I morally correct in this approach?

If a voter is reacting emotionally to propaganda, without taking the time to understand the real story, is this much different from rolling dice?

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#208

Post by halostatue »

jdub wrote: post #54
cletus wrote: post #7

In Australia voting is mandatory. If you're registered to vote and you don't you can get fined. If no one is registered to vote at your address you'll tend to get lots of mail about it (but ultimately, staying off the electoral roll isn't difficult). I used to think this was a bad idea as it forced people to vote who didn't really care. In recent years I've come around to the opposite point of view based pretty much…

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

It need not be.

By law in Canada, employers are required to make sure that every employee has three and half hours during which they can go vote.

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=faq...

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#209

Post by pasbesoin »

I decided not to post this to HN as a topic, even though it is non-partisan and I support the message. But since there is already this "vote" thread, I offer your this perspective and perhaps motivation:

[2008] Craig Ferguson: If you don't vote, you're a moron

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdRVQ4xwwmQ#t=06m25s

The above link "cuts to the chase"; however, the entire monologue is worth watching (more commentary on the campaigning, including its hypocrisy).

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#210

Post by jdub »

riffic wrote: post #85
jdub wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In 1845, the United States was largely an agrarian society. Farmers often needed a full day to travel by horse-drawn vehicles to the county seat to vote. Tuesday was established as election day because it did not interfere with the Biblical Sabbath or with market day, which was on Wednesday in many towns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Day_(United_States)

That's great, but it's not 1845, and I know that not all Americans are Constitutional fundamentalist nutjobs. :-)
Post reply on HN