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

Stay Gold, America

blog.codinghorror.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 239 posts

Re: Stay Gold, America

#211

Post by jongalloway2 »

lapcat wrote: post #126
docdeek wrote: post #9

>> Whatever the reasons, 42% of adults living in America had no say in the 2024 election. The vote failed to represent everyone. The 2024 election had a turnout of about 59% of the voting age population. Since 1972, only one presidential election had higher turnout than that (it was 2020). If the 2024 vote didn’t represent everyone, then most every election for the last half century has been even worse at representin…

A lot of people don't vote because they feel that in our American plutocracy, no matter who wins the elections, the elected leaders always cater to the needs of their financial benefactors rather than to the needs of their constituents. The outcome is never good for the public. This is not to say that the candidates are exactly the same but rather that the candidates are simply different forms of corruption, controll…

The post specifically calls out wealth concentration (e.g. becoming wealthier than one's fellows) as a major problem, and the donations are focused on working against that. Review the list of dentations, as you may have missed that these are organizations that help people in need rather than, say, recent examples of billionaires buying votes.

Re: Stay Gold, America

#212

Post by noduerme »

akdor1154 wrote: post #110
alkonaut wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compulsory voting removes an important signal where participation indicates the legitimacy. Which is why very few democracies have compulsory voting. Having 70-80-90% participation with non-compulsory voting should be the goal of any self respecting democracy and politicians who reject measures to increase voter turnout should be viewed with extreme suspicion.

> Compulsory voting removes an important signal where participation indicates the legitimacy. Australia has compulsory voting and retains this: the legal req is to show up and get your name marked off. If you wish to communicate your dissatisfaction with the available candidates, then you then fill out your ballot with a giant penis and go on your merry way.

Sounds like you could do well in Australian politics by just changing your name to a penis emoji.

Re: Stay Gold, America

#213

Post by ropable »

alkonaut wrote: post #24
noduerme wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having lived in a country with compulsory voting (Argentina), I find the notion charming but I can scarcely say it leads to more intelligent outcomes.

Compulsory voting removes an important signal where participation indicates the legitimacy. Which is why very few democracies have compulsory voting. Having 70-80-90% participation with non-compulsory voting should be the goal of any self respecting democracy and politicians who reject measures to increase voter turnout should be viewed with extreme suspicion.

Couldn't disagree harder. "Participation indicates the legitimacy" is an absurd inference, and does not follow at all. By this argument, non-participation indicates a preference for a non-voting alternative (such as hereditary rule).

Re: Stay Gold, America

#214

Post by lapcat »

jongalloway2 wrote: post #211
lapcat wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people don't vote because they feel that in our American plutocracy, no matter who wins the elections, the elected leaders always cater to the needs of their financial benefactors rather than to the needs of their constituents. The outcome is never good for the public. This is not to say that the candidates are exactly the same but rather that the candidates are simply different forms of corruption, controll…

The post specifically calls out wealth concentration (e.g. becoming wealthier than one's fellows) as a major problem, and the donations are focused on working against that. Review the list of dentations, as you may have missed that these are organizations that help people in need rather than, say, recent examples of billionaires buying votes.

Atwood's conception of the "American Dream" is profoundly individualistic, selfish, inegalitarian:

"Programmers all over the world helped make an American Dream happen in 2008 when we built Stack Overflow"

"I was rewarded handsomely for a combination of hard work and good luck. That's what the American Dream promises us."

"I earned millions of dollars. I thought that was the final part of the American Dream." [He goes on to talk the final part as "sharing" the American Dream, but I question why earning millions of dollars is the first part, or indeed any part, of the American Dream.]

"It was only after I attained the dream that I was able to fully see how many Americans have so very little. This much wealth starts to unintentionally distance my family from other Americans."

"I grew up poor in America, inspired by the promise of the American Dream that I could better myself and my family"

In other words, Atwood is committed in principle to a system of inequality, despite complaining about the current historic levels of inequality. One wonders, what level of inequality would be acceptable to him? Atwood started making political posts only after Trump was elected, but wealth concentration was already a huge problem before then.

Moreover, Atwood's only "solutions" to our problems seem to be charity from the ultra-wealthy and voter turnout. Implicitly, he appears to be blaming people poorer than him for our problems, for not voting "correctly", or not voting at all, as if there were anyone to vote for who would do anything about wealth inequality. Certainly not Harris, financially backed by a bunch of billionaires herself who were essentially writing her policies along with their checks to her campaign.

A system that relies essentially on charity, especially on the charity of the ultra-wealthy, is fundamentally dysfunctional, broken. Charity should not be necessary if the government does what it's supposed to do and protects its citizens. I'm not impressed by philanthropy, because the need for it is already a sign that something is very wrong. It presumes a system that disproportionately benefits a few and impoverishes many, perhaps just so that the philanthropists can feel good about themselves.

Re: Stay Gold, America

#215

Post by npvrite »

Right..... because the way to fix this country is by having all of us pay to fix the problems the rich/government create???

How about the rich/government following the rules and not allowing a former president that violated the Constitution's Foreign Emoluments Clause run for election? Taking millions as bribes/gifts from foreign governments? Are you kidding me.

And I'm stumped as to why more people haven't heard the new Epst.. tapes where he reveals his 15 year friendship with this "president".

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/01/trump-jeffre...

Are you serious? This is the leader of a free country?

Ohhhhhhh because this country is so darn proud of free speech.

I wonder if the whistleblowers that revealed all of the NSA spying programs feel that way.

The come up to this election had nothing but propaganda spread on "X". Literally no possible way to block the content created by the shi* poster Elon.

Only after everyone started to move to blusky did his posts magically stop showing up daily in timelines.

Braindead country. I truly wish I was born in South Korea where the citizens hold corrupt politicians accountable.

Re: Stay Gold, America

#216

Post by eru »

noduerme wrote: post #20
docdeek wrote: post #9

>> Whatever the reasons, 42% of adults living in America had no say in the 2024 election. The vote failed to represent everyone. The 2024 election had a turnout of about 59% of the voting age population. Since 1972, only one presidential election had higher turnout than that (it was 2020). If the 2024 vote didn’t represent everyone, then most every election for the last half century has been even worse at representin…

Having lived in a country with compulsory voting (Argentina), I find the notion charming but I can scarcely say it leads to more intelligent outcomes.

My adopted home of Singapore has something like compulsory voting.

But the only punishment you get for not voting is at most a small fine and that you have to jump through some hoops to get on the register of voters again. But it seems to work in practice to get people to turn out.

Re: Stay Gold, America

#217

Post by eru »

coldtea wrote: post #51
throwpoaster wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America is the best country in the world for growing something new. Source: I am a non-American who does business in America.

> America is the best country in the world for growing something new The 27th best, if that new thing is supposed to lift your social/economic status upwards: "The US ranked 27th in the 2020 Global Social Mobility Index". But it might well be the best for people to build new businesses of scale (especially already well off people).

Going from most countries to the US lifts your economic status upwards by a lot.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Son_Also_Rises_(book) for intergenerational social mobility.

Re: Stay Gold, America

#218

Post by defrost »

eru wrote: post #217
coldtea wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> America is the best country in the world for growing something new The 27th best, if that new thing is supposed to lift your social/economic status upwards: "The US ranked 27th in the 2020 Global Social Mobility Index". But it might well be the best for people to build new businesses of scale (especially already well off people).

Going from most countries to the US lifts your economic status upwards by a lot. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Son_Also_Rises_(book) for intergenerational social mobility.

From Oz to the US knocks 5 years off life expectancy, knocks a whole 1 point (out of 10) from your democracy index, reduces your human freedom rating, increases your health care spending, increases your 10 year cost of living, etc.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/democracy-index-eiu?tab=t...

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freedom-i...

etc.

Re: Stay Gold, America

#219

Post by eru »

defrost wrote: post #218
eru wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going from most countries to the US lifts your economic status upwards by a lot. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Son_Also_Rises_(book) for intergenerational social mobility.

From Oz to the US knocks 5 years off life expectancy, knocks a whole 1 point (out of 10) from your democracy index, reduces your human freedom rating, increases your health care spending, increases your 10 year cost of living, etc. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/democracy-index-eiu?tab=t... https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freedom-i... etc.

[dead]

Re: Stay Gold, America

#220

Post by kaycey2022 »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #140
alkonaut wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> simply by casting a ballot that is functionally empty of choices. The signals are different. I cast a blank vote to indicate my support for the process/election, but my lack of support for any of the candidates. I cast no vote to indicate my lack of support for the process itself. Non-voters and blank/invalid voters are usually reported separately to give exactly these 2 signals.

I wonder how well a system would work if it had compulsory voting, but there was always a 'none of the above' option on the ballet. If 'none of the above' gets the most votes or above a certain threshold, the current candidates are disqualified and another election is called with new ones.

Yes. Once that is in place you’ll realise that most people aren’t cynical about their politics and would always choose a candidate since they choose to make a trip to the voting booth.
Post reply on HN