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

161–170 of 391 posts

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#161

Post by jasonlotito »

mkr-hn wrote: post #112
jasonlotito wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not making that assumption. Yes, you are (at least for the question), here: > How will voting change the system if no candidate is willing to change it? You have to make the assumption that people are willing to make the change for that question to be valid, otherwise, it reads like thsi: "How will voting change the system if no candidate is willing to change it and voters aren't willing to change it?" So yes,…

It should be enough for me to say "I'm not making that assumption." Rather than call me a liar, you could assume that either you misunderstood, or I misspoke and decided correcting it wasn't worth spending text on. Maybe I just assume too much of people. Was this little diversion really necessary?

> It should be enough for me to say "I'm not making that assumption."

But you were.

> Rather than call me a liar,

I didn't.

> you could assume that either you misunderstood,

I didn't. You said what you said. If you didn't mean what you said, fine. But then clarify it.

> or I misspoke and decided correcting it wasn't worth spending text on.

Then maybe you should avoid commenting on things you don't feel are worth your time, especially when you can't be bothered to say what you mean.

> Maybe I just assume too much of people.

I make the assumption people say what they mean. As you've demonstrated,

> Was this little diversion really necessary?

Apparently you found it necessary. Rather than simply correct what you wrote, you decided to disregard what I said and then comment on things completely unimportant to the discussion.

You asked a question, and I answered. If you aren't interested in a discussion, don't post here. If you are, at least have the courtesy to be clear about what you write. Being lazy and uncaring about quality aren't respected here.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#162

Post by Jun8 »

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 citizenship right; it cannot be made contiguous on intellectual (or any other, e.g. socio-economic class) aspects, e.g. knowledge of economics, full understanding of the issues etc. of a voter. If you open the door to voter discrimination by declaring some votes less equal than others, who knows what other ideologies may walk through it.

It is also dangerous because it creates a sense of "right". The one thing that always amazed me in my discussions with liberals in the US is that they argue that their position is, how to put it, "inherently right", i.e. that they are the informed ones, whereas the "others" are the hoi polloi, the uneducated, stupid masses. Years earlier, in the race between Kerry and Bush, when I pointed to these people that Kerry came across as unlovable and stiff, I was met with disbelief: It was Kerry's "right" to be elected because he was "right". The danger of this view, of course, is that it often leads to defeat. In any confrontation, knowing the enemy's full power is crucial and belittling them will not make you win the war.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#163

Post by omnigoat »

cletus wrote: post #102
RuadhanMc wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australian's by and large are not very ideological. With the exception of the Green's movement, there isn't really another "issues" political group that gets much attention -- or members. Politicians are a bunch of wankers. They wouldn't be politicians if they weren't. I don't mean that in a really bad way, I just mean, being a successful politician takes a certain personality type. If you aren't rough as guts, a bit…

There are ideological divides but we don't seem to have the hot button issues (eg abortion) that the US does. This is I believe because religion does not pay a big part in the Australian political system and our religious institutions don't tend to be hugely politically active. The ALP (Australian Labor Party) are out "Democrats" (in the US sense; we had a Democrats party here that was something else and basically im…

Also, the Greens are gaining like crazy right now. Probably for two reasons: One, before about 4 years ago, there was 13 years of Liberal government (once again, they are capital-L Liberals, not lowercase-l liberals). And then the "left" party came into government, and it turns out that hey, they're actually centre-right. I mean they're actually centre-right. They're not left at all, not on the economy (which I'm okay with), and not on moral issues (which I'm less okay with). So the greens are picking up voters that wanted a more progressive government, and whom voted Labor, and whom were then disappointed. The Greens picked up a seat in the Senate, are polling about 15% in Victoria for the State elections. So they're becoming influential at the expense of Labor.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#164

Post by maukdaddy »

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…

That's why there are TWO chambers. House gives you representation based on population while Senate give you equal representation. Checks and balances.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#165

Post by Yzupnick »

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.

In Israel election day is a national holiday and everyone is off from work/school.

EDIT: Spelling

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#166

Post by CWuestefeld »

flatline wrote: post #158
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…

I'm voting for a platform if I vote for a Democrat or Republican or Libertarian

That's true to a certain extent. But it's only one side of the equation. Even if you can take party as a proxy for the candidate, it tells you nothing about the issues.

So, let's say that your biggest concern at the moment is the economy. Without knowing something about economics, how do you decide which party to support? If you can't tell the difference between Keynes and Hayek, everything else is just demagoguery. You're just judging the propaganda.

What if you're concern is healthcare? I know plenty of people who say "vote out the damn Democrats, and put in somebody who's smart enough to enact tort reform to fix the problem". These ill-informed views might make them feel superior, but giving people power to create policy based on them isn't going to help anything.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#167

Post by hnal943 »

jbooth wrote: post #142
kgosser wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seth Godin disagrees with you: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/11/voting-misun... Additionally, "if you understand the issues" is a vague, relative parameter. I know in the state of wisconsin I don't know 100% of the issues (and probably not even 50%, sadly. Been a busy year), but I know enough of what I like and dislike about the Governor and Senate battles to vote with confidence. I think your argument…

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).

No one has brought up socialism in this campaign at all. Ron Johnson has run a specific, issue oriented campaign. His major focus is stopping the run away spending of the Obama agenda. He entered the race when Obamacare passed, because he felt that was the last straw.

Feingold on the other hand is standing by his vote for Obamacare. I haven't forgotten the disdainful smirk on his face when he addressed his enraged constituents at last years' health care town hall meetings, and I don't think my fellow Wisconsinites have either.

This election is all about consequences for those who ignored the will of the people, and Russ Feingold is chief among them.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#168

Post by randallsquared »

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?

I'm not mzl, but there are all kinds of reasons why it might be a long project: waiting for public transit (especially if there's more than one connection), waiting in line at the poll (if turnout is much higher than expected), etc.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#169

Post by TheAmazingIdiot »

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?

I've spent an hour and a half before, mainly due to excessive turnout and lack of voting booths.

2 of the 6 machines the precinct received did not verify when turned on. They're an electronic booth with paper printout (yes,what the vote hackers wanted to begin with). However the paper did not agree with the electronic tally, hence machine invalidated.

And they got 4x the turnout they were expecting. Now, usually, it's 20 min in line and 3 min for the vote itself.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#170

Post by jbooth »

hnal943 wrote: post #167
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).

No one has brought up socialism in this campaign at all. Ron Johnson has run a specific, issue oriented campaign. His major focus is stopping the run away spending of the Obama agenda. He entered the race when Obamacare passed, because he felt that was the last straw. Feingold on the other hand is standing by his vote for Obamacare. I haven't forgotten the disdainful smirk on his face when he addressed his enraged co…

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.

Post reply on HN