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

221–230 of 391 posts

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#221

Post by siculars »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #185
Jun8 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You have some nerve. You really do. Has it occurred to you that the mere act of participation in and exercising your right to vote is an act of "...knowledge and understanding..." in it's own right?

I find the totality of your comments in this thread incredibly offensive. To suggest that citizens abdicate their right to vote is incredulous. I am of the opinion that every citizen should be encouraged to vote by any and all legal means. If for no other reason then to educate people as to the mechanics of democracy let alone exercise a right that generations of people have died to ensure.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#222

Post by nene »

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.

> By any chance, is your most recently elected president called "moot"?

Sorry. I don't understand this comment.

Is it trying to say, that electronic voting is by definition a failure? It doesn't seem to criticize any specific aspect of the Estonian e-voting system.

Or is it just calling names?

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#223

Post by afterburner »

jswinghammer wrote: post #141
jrockway wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may want to rethink this strategy, because this is not what's going to happen.

Can you really say that voting has made things better?

Way to correlate!

I have to say, this type of attitude makes me suspicious. One of the parties in US elections gains a lot by discouraging people in general not to vote, because it tilts the results in their favour. This might not apply to you, but I always wonder if these kinds of comments aren't just in support of that strategy.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#224

Post by thecoffman »

RiderOfGiraffes wrote: post #37
mkr-hn wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If 100% of eligible people voted, it still wouldn't be a pure democracy. It's not how the system is designed. Our system is built on the assumption that most people don't have the time or capacity to understand all the issues, so we elect people to do the understanding for us.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. It seems like you're saying that to be a democracy it must be that everyone has a say/vote in every decision made about every issue. Is that right?

Technically that is correct. According to my fourth grade social studies teacher a true or "direct" democracy is one in which each eligible voter votes on each issue. What we have is a representative democracy or a Republic where we vote on representatives that we assume will then vote on the issues in our best interests.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#225

Post by metellus »

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…

I really doubt that making voting mandatory would make a difference in the US. A large fine for not voting would be unreasonable and universally disliked while a small fine would be ignored. For example, we take the census, a short questionnaire, every 10 years. Filling out the census is mandatory and the government makes a considerable effort to make sure that every household finishes their census form. However, this year there were many people who took it as a point of pride not to fill out the form, even though it is much easier to do than voting and is compulsory.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#226

Post by zavulon »

jdietrich wrote: post #18

If you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the next set of assholes. Here in the UK, the British National Party (a far-right fringe party) got two seats in the last European Parliament elections simply because turnout had fallen so low for the main parties. A lot of people are rightly ashamed at not bothering to vote. The only people who benefit from apathy are extremists and demagogues who can reliably r…

> If you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the next set of assholes.

Really?

I'm not sure how the UK system works, but in the US it's based on the state. (this is only re: presidential election) I live in NY, and democrats always taken NY state in presidential election just because they're democrats. Same with California. And in Texas, Republican candidate always wins because he's a Republican. There may be some exceptions to the rule, but very few.

So my vote didn't really count in the last election, because no matter how I voted, Obama would still win NY.

This is a product of a broken two party system that doesn't allow any non-asshole candidate to get elected. It's always a choice between a giant douche and turd sandwich.

Having said that, I still voted - for the third party, even though they had no chance. Maybe if one day a third party candidate gets enough voted something will change.

I think I'm gonna go vote for Jimmy McMillan now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_Is_Too_Damn_High_Party

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#227

Post by younata »

alain94040 wrote: post #215
philwelch wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I voted on Saturday, too. Some of the more enlightened states in the US allow voting by mail.

I have never figured out how voting by mail is possible. The case I'm interested in, a classic, is the husband dictacting to his wife who to vote for. When you vote by mail in the comfort of your home, how do you guarantee that no such tampering happened?

As an out of state college student, I'm very much so fond of voting by mail.

I voted about three weeks ago.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#228

Post by mbreese »

frobozz wrote: post #194
mbreese wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A monarchy, when you have a good monarch isn't bad. However, you tend to end up with these bloody conflicts every now and again over who gets to be the monarch. Merit might work, but it has the capability to discriminate against certain classes (even those who might otherwise make informed decisions). I might be able to accept a system where you have to perform some level of service to the state in order to gain a vo…

How would it discriminate against people who might make informed decisions? The only qualification is that you have the understanding required to do so.

These tests have been used to discriminate against various minority groups throughout the years. For example, you may have a perfectly good grasp of the issues and who best represents your point of view, but you suck at math. No votes for you. Or, you can't read. etc... that's why these tests have been been illegal for quite a while.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#229

Post by Quarrelsome »

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…

Politicians also love an ill-informed population. By forcing everyone to vote you also force people who don't have an interest or opinion to vote. I mean sure that makes it more representative but I wonder if it is not better that these people don't vote, especially if they don't exactly appreciate why they are voting or the differences between the parties and policies.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#230

Post by hnal943 »

jbooth wrote: post #205
orangecat wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cryi…

Blaming the Republicans doesn't make any sense. Democrats have the votes to do whatever they want to do, which is why it's so easy this year to hold incumbents accountable.
Post reply on HN