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

Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 100% voter turnout

themacro.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 458 posts

Re: Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 100% voter turnout

#241

Post by hackuser »

debracleaver wrote: post #228
Animats wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, first you have to make your site work. Your site says that I'm not registered to vote in San Mateo County, California. But San Mateo County's site, " https://www.shapethefuture.org/MyElectionMaterials/default.a... , says that I am. Also, you collected my email address. That's mandatory before you do the registration check. Why? I don't want to be "onboarded", and if I was, I want to be "offboarded". I just wrot…

if by spam you mean send election reminders, then yes, we are spammers. we're a 501c3 nonprofit. that means we don't profit off of our work unless helping to build a healthy democracy can be considered profit. also, we use a third-party database to power that tool. this probably won't shock you, but aggregating and normalizing voter roll data from 10,000+ election jurisdictions is messy and hard. there will always be…

> we're not spammers. we're election reformers

I support what you do. However, that comment's blase-looking dismissal of privacy and spam concerns, rather than a serious attempt to address them, doesn't give me good feelings or confidence.

Re: Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 100% voter turnout

#242

Post by beambot »

e40 wrote: post #239
baron816 wrote: post #156

The biggest reason people in the US don't vote is because they don't have enough options so they never get to choose people they really care about. Plus, no individual vote matters. This all has to do with our winner-take-all elections. Countries with proportional representation have much higher voter turnout rates (often in the 80-90% range). That's because you get to vote for the person or party you want, and they'…

The biggest reason people in the US don't vote is because they don't have enough options so they never get to choose people they really care about. Sorry, this is complete malarky. The calculus of voting is: vote for the least of two evils. If we had 100% voting and everyone did this, the politicians would get better over time, because they would learn that being a certain way would result in failure. The general poo…

Abstaining is a form of voting, regardless of whether you consider it "some BS idea."

Re: Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 100% voter turnout

#243

Post by hackuser »

antisthenes wrote: post #98
hnamazon123 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly, strongly suspect that the primary motivation for this comes from the fact that higher voter turnout tends to favor democrats. http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/3/progressives-ne...

Not democrats, but liberal fiscal policy. Although seeing as how there's no party in the US that would cater to social conservatives and fiscal liberals (and vice versa), your statement is mostly correct.

> Not democrats

I'm pretty sure it favors Democrats.The GOP long has tried to suppress votes; what other motive would they have?

Re: Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 100% voter turnout

#244

Post by st3v3r »

pixelatedindex wrote: post #144
igorgue wrote: post #114

I have a theory that since that the USA doesn't make election day a federal holiday is one of the major factors the working class of america is not voting, usually it takes too long to vote, and it's not paid for employees, especially blue collar ones. I wonder what are your thoughts about it, and how can it happen in America? I've seen every single proposal be rejected in congress.

I am inclined to agree. During election days, I struggled to get time off from my retail job to go vote. If young people are encouraged to vote, they should not be financially penalized for doing so. Also, you have to go to a polling place next to your neighborhood. Most of the time work is not anywhere close to just take off during lunch and get the vote out. It almost ends up being a hassle. Sundays would be better…

"Additionally, the "closed" primaries vs "open" primaries are bullshit. As a citizen I should be able to go to a polling place, choose a candidate and get out."

Depending on the state, though, it's the party choosing who the candidate they want to put forward is. So it should be that party's right to decide who gets to partake in that decision. I mean, would it make sense for a whole bunch of Republicans to come and vote in the Democratic primary?

Re: Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 100% voter turnout

#245

Post by yompers888 »

hackuser wrote: post #212
JacobJans wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the worst lies perpetuated by the media is that the presidential election is the only one that really matters. There are so many elections that have a direct impact on your life that you can participate in – state, city, and county election. These are not generally very partisan. Sadly, local elections often don't have enough options simply because there aren't enough politicians standing for election.

> One of the worst lies perpetuated by the media is that the presidential election is the only one that really matters. I haven't seen this suggested in the media.

Parent might be saying the media supports this fallacy by the amount of coverage given.

With the huge number of resources available online for information, I would suggest that the perception of media as only covering presidential elections means that you need to work a little harder and find news sources that give you more valuable content. And if your desired news source doesn't exist, think about making it. For example, my hometown is a town of 20,000 people in a beautiful part of the country, but it suffers from being, at best, a bedroom community for nearby hospitals and colleges since 2008 finally ended the industrial presence. There's a guy there who has decided that he's going to give the town news, and he does fantastically well. He has a facebook page with 10000 followers (remember, the town is only 20000) and summarized positions of all the candidates for the recent city council and school board elections. All his posts have substantial discussions in the comments. In recent months I've had great discussions with high school classmates about where the town is headed, which wouldn't have happened before this facebook page (because we didn't have the information.) We also take a pretty active interest in the town, despite the fact that we all live 500-3000 miles away these days.

That turned into a bit of show and tell. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are people interested in local coverage if it's substantial.

Re: Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 100% voter turnout

#246

Post by st3v3r »

hnamazon123 wrote: post #143
seomis wrote: post #42

To those commenting with some variation of "only informed citizens should vote," pause and consider how much overlap there is with your idea of what an "informed" voter is with race/class lines. You may be unwittingly (or wittingly in some cases?) insisting that voters in the US should be, disproportionately, wealthier whites.

Perhaps wealthier whites are more informed on average? Why does race or class matter?

Informed on what, though? Which candidate will be better for getting things like mandatory sick days passed, or which candidate will be better for business?

Re: Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 100% voter turnout

#247

Post by laxatives »

danieltillett wrote: post #188
laxatives wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe this is or isn't non-partisan, but here's a shot: I'm 25 years old. I've never voted and never will vote as long as there is a two party system. There has never been a situation where I can agree with either party or individual enough to support them in an election. How do you intend to get people like me to vote? Also, if you did you get everyone to vote, wouldn't every vote turn in to a popularity contest? In…

Stop voting for someone and start voting against someone. Pick the least worst candidate and give them your vote.

No that isn't a solution or comprimise I'm comfortable with. I'm not saying itst my responsibility to cut losses and do what's best for everyone. I'm saying this system is broken and I won't be a part of it.

Re: Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 100% voter turnout

#248

Post by st3v3r »

kidcoach wrote: post #211
seomis wrote: post #42

To those commenting with some variation of "only informed citizens should vote," pause and consider how much overlap there is with your idea of what an "informed" voter is with race/class lines. You may be unwittingly (or wittingly in some cases?) insisting that voters in the US should be, disproportionately, wealthier whites.

I know politically informed minimum wage folks, and some really politically-flawed doctors and upper-level managers who spend so much time on their job or kids they don't care to read into politics. The "informed voters = rich whiteys" theory is just an assumption that infers people who want informed voters are often racist. Lets leave race out of such discussions and stick with how we could make an unbiased solution…

What if we don't think we could make an unbiased solution? What if the best solution is to simply get everyone to vote?

Re: Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 100% voter turnout

#249

Post by hackuser »

dragonwriter wrote: post #199
laxatives wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe this is or isn't non-partisan, but here's a shot: I'm 25 years old. I've never voted and never will vote as long as there is a two party system. There has never been a situation where I can agree with either party or individual enough to support them in an election. How do you intend to get people like me to vote? Also, if you did you get everyone to vote, wouldn't every vote turn in to a popularity contest? In…

> Maybe this is or isn't non-partisan, but here's a shot: I'm 25 years old. I've never voted and never will vote as long as there is a two party system. There has never been a situation where I can agree with either party or individual enough to support them in an election. How do you intend to get people like me to vote? In most places in the US, there are plenty of downballot elections, many of which are nonpartisa…

> In most places in the US, there are plenty of downballot elections, many of which are nonpartisan

I'll add that your vote has much more power in these elections. Usually very few others vote, and the districts are much smaller (your local city council member might have hundreds or thousands of constituents, compared with the President who has 310 million); you vote might be one of several hundred.

Re: Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 100% voter turnout

#250

Post by joshdotsmith »

debracleaver wrote: post #2

Hey everyone. Debra Cleaver here, founder of Vote.org. I am ready to answer all of your questions about voting in the US, as long as they are non-partisan. Partisan questions should be directed to your local political party. I'm especially keen to talk about ways we can use technology to modernize the election process. My current focus is how we can use electronic signatures to roll out online voter registration in s…

Hi Debra! Thanks for the hard work on Vote.org.

Have you thought about efforts to open up access to a nationalized voter file? As it stands right now, a one-time snapshot of all 50 states would cost approximately $144,000. This makes it difficult for get out the vote efforts, and for efforts to identify registration irregularities.

Also, have you thought about open sourcing your work at all? I know there are a large number of developers ready and willing to help efforts like this, particularly for a non-profit like yours.

Post reply on HN