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

381–390 of 391 posts

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#381

Post by brudgers »

gojomo wrote: post #184
brudgers wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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…

The idea of a government based on delegation of authority to the most informed has its roots in antiquity. And although HN may be the first community to actually governed by a philosopher-king, its ability to scale has not been successfully demonstrated.

The problem as I see it, is that believing oneself to be "relatively uninformed" does not make a person relatively uninformed (it may in fact lead them to actively acquire more information - i.e why Severs believes he is below average). Conversely, believing oneself to be well informed does not make one well informed, and may alas lead a person to stop seeking relevant information.

Indeed it would not surprise me if the people most affected by "simpleminded sloganeering" tend to believe they are well informed.

The problem with "people should" in a political context is that it can quickly become "people must" backed with the force of government, and any implementation of: "Informed voting > not voting > uninformed voting" requires disenfranchisement.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#382

Post by rsbrown »

shasta wrote: post #137
rsbrown wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

David Foster Wallace said better than I: "If you are bored and disgusted by politics and don't bother to vote, you are in effect voting for the entrenched Establishments of the two major parties, who please rest assured are not dumb, and who are keenly aware that it is in their interests to keep you disgusted and bored and cynical and to give you every possible psychological reason to stay at home doing one-hitters a…

Eloquent and wrong. Voting for anything other than one of the two entrenched parties is usually a waste of time and gasoline. There is no cabal of evil masterminds responsible for cynicism and apathy - it's an emergent property of the rules of the game. If you can join forces with like-minded citizens in support an idea that you believe in, as part of a movement that could change national policies for the better, the…

As much as I disdain their movement, the Tea Partiers are proving you wrong. It's no coincidence that 75% of this group are 45 years or older. As we all know, the elder demographic votes in large and reliable numbers. This is how they're realizing such success tonight. By voting -- not by rallying or organizing.

What I'm hearing is that you do not vote because you resent some perceived obligation do so. Seriously?

The opportunity to cast one's vote is a distinct privilege.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#383

Post by natep »

shasta wrote: post #137
rsbrown wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

David Foster Wallace said better than I: "If you are bored and disgusted by politics and don't bother to vote, you are in effect voting for the entrenched Establishments of the two major parties, who please rest assured are not dumb, and who are keenly aware that it is in their interests to keep you disgusted and bored and cynical and to give you every possible psychological reason to stay at home doing one-hitters a…

Eloquent and wrong. Voting for anything other than one of the two entrenched parties is usually a waste of time and gasoline. There is no cabal of evil masterminds responsible for cynicism and apathy - it's an emergent property of the rules of the game. If you can join forces with like-minded citizens in support an idea that you believe in, as part of a movement that could change national policies for the better, the…

> join forces with like-minded citizens in support an idea that you believe in

That looks like the definition of a political party to me. Saying that creating more parties is a solution to the current 2-party situation (which, I agree, is bad) doesn't seem right to me. I don't really have a solution, though.

Voting for someone outside of those 2 parties is only a waste of time because so many people are doing such a good job of convincing everyone that it is. If the >50% of the population that never votes all went out and voted third party, even if they were different third parties, then maybe some of them would qualify for government $, and then maybe one of them could get even more supporters in the next election with that money.

By not voting you're taking away your .000001% influence on the outcome. By not voting and telling everyone it doesn't make sense to vote, you're taking away the influence of everyone you convince not to vote, and making it that much harder for anyone trying to create the kind of movements you suggest.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#384

Post by moxiemk1 »

hnal943 wrote: post #319
moxiemk1 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they don't? The Republicans have used filibuster as a threat at an unprecedented level. The Senate has only nominally been in the Democrats' control. EDIT: Punctuation

Until Scott Brown's election last year, the Democrats could have ended any filibuster attempt immediately. Democrats had a free run for a year. For the a year and a half now, the public has been screaming for them to stop. Brown's election was the first shot across the bow, but the Democrats paid no heed.

It's been a traditional courtsey in the Senate for the party in power not to shove through votes often, in respect that in the future they would eventually be the minority party, and occasionally need to filibuster as well. The possibility of removing the ability to filibuster has been discussed, but not undertaken for this reason.

By filibustering so often, the Republicans are showing that this is no longer the custom. Which is fine; I think it's a silly custom, and we'd benefit as a nation if blocking legislation like that were impossible. But it is absolutely a break from common procedure.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#385

Post by moxiemk1 »

sigstoat wrote: post #314
moxiemk1 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they don't? The Republicans have used filibuster as a threat at an unprecedented level. The Senate has only nominally been in the Democrats' control. EDIT: Punctuation

i've never felt politicians were particularly courageous if they were afraid of the possibility that someone might talk for awhile. if something is so important, at least give it a shot. worst case you have to listen to somebody read his grocery list to you. (and he ends up looking like an idiot on national tv. the news will ensure that.)

This isn't the issue in a filibuster; the cowardice is on the part of the senator who refuses to give up the floor. The whole point is that you talk until the bill expires, and so cannot be voted on.

Filibustering senators are declaring that they are unwilling to allow the issue to be voted on, not that they think their voice hasn't been heard enough.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#386

Post by sigstoat »

moxiemk1 wrote: post #385
sigstoat wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i've never felt politicians were particularly courageous if they were afraid of the possibility that someone might talk for awhile. if something is so important, at least give it a shot. worst case you have to listen to somebody read his grocery list to you. (and he ends up looking like an idiot on national tv. the news will ensure that.)

This isn't the issue in a filibuster; the cowardice is on the part of the senator who refuses to give up the floor. The whole point is that you talk until the bill expires, and so cannot be voted on. Filibustering senators are declaring that they are unwilling to allow the issue to be voted on, not that they think their voice hasn't been heard enough.

uh, yeah, i know what a filibuster is. try reading again in light of that fact.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#387

Post by jacoblyles »

jbooth wrote: post #363
jacoblyles wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should read John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty". It makes all my arguments for free political speech for me and in a much more elegant manner. It is self-evident that if you limit the amount of money that people can spend on advertising their political views that niche candidates and less popular ideas will be hurt the most. Unions can compel donations from their millions of members, your Clintons, Obamas, and McCain…

I'm about done here but can you really not see any potential conflicts of interest when you allow those who have the most money to flood the zone with hundred-million dollar ad buys? That doesn't offend any small-d democratic principles that you hold? I want to re-regulate outside advertisements because they are almost always the product of shady dealings. Citizens United happened this year and we're setting records…

As much as I would like to eliminate the biggest political spenders from the public discourse - the public sector unions who spend hundreds of millions of dollars to elect their own bosses - I believe even they deserve the right to speak.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#388

Post by CWuestefeld »

moxiemk1 wrote: post #384
hnal943 wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until Scott Brown's election last year, the Democrats could have ended any filibuster attempt immediately. Democrats had a free run for a year. For the a year and a half now, the public has been screaming for them to stop. Brown's election was the first shot across the bow, but the Democrats paid no heed.

It's been a traditional courtsey in the Senate for the party in power not to shove through votes often, in respect that in the future they would eventually be the minority party, and occasionally need to filibuster as well. The possibility of removing the ability to filibuster has been discussed, but not undertaken for this reason. By filibustering so often, the Republicans are showing that this is no longer the cust…

I think your memory is fuzzy. For example, under GWB, the Democrat's use of the filibuster was also frequent and controversial. There were judicial appointments that went unfilled for years because the Dem's refused to discuss them.

(as much as it pains me to defend the GOP)

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#389

Post by shasta »

rsbrown wrote: post #382
shasta wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eloquent and wrong. Voting for anything other than one of the two entrenched parties is usually a waste of time and gasoline. There is no cabal of evil masterminds responsible for cynicism and apathy - it's an emergent property of the rules of the game. If you can join forces with like-minded citizens in support an idea that you believe in, as part of a movement that could change national policies for the better, the…

As much as I disdain their movement, the Tea Partiers are proving you wrong. It's no coincidence that 75% of this group are 45 years or older. As we all know, the elder demographic votes in large and reliable numbers. This is how they're realizing such success tonight. By voting -- not by rallying or organizing. What I'm hearing is that you do not vote because you resent some perceived obligation do so. Seriously? Th…

Huh? The Tea Party is a good example of how to unify people behind ideas - exactly what I was talking about. And I never said I didn't vote. What I find stupid is the idea that you have some kind of obligation to vote just to voice your opinion. In particular, voting for 3rd party candidates that are not well known enough to possibly win is stupid. There may be exceptions if a respectable showing is part of a strategy.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#390

Post by Semiapies »

andymorris wrote: post #380
Semiapies wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The belief that an attempt that cannot work and somehow creates an effect through symbolism is a belief in magic.

As is believing that politicians would interpret a low voter turnout as anything but a net gain - it just means they can expend less effort required to shift the balance in their favour.

"Politicians" collectively win no matter what. Particular politicians and interest groups have varying strategies for high and low voter turnout and various vote compositions.

I fail to see what is magical about not bothering to make a move when they win either way.

Post reply on HN