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

251–260 of 391 posts

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#251

Post by riffic »

jonpaul wrote: post #140
rrc wrote: post #42

In a perfect system, I would like to see voting require a license. People require a driver's license because uneducated drivers can harm others. Uneducated voters can cause similar harm to others. Taken to the extreme, you could have a direct democracy where individuals vote directly for proposed bills, bypassing the (usually vested) middleman. Voters would have to pass some competency exam on the subject of the bill…

A direct democracy is like two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. You can't trust the masses to make decisions like this.

Direct democracy is best left at an extremely local level. Otherwise it's glorified mob rule -- Tyranny of the Majority.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#252

Post by randallsquared »

afterburner wrote: post #223
jswinghammer wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 implies that you believe that the other party (from whichever one you were thinking of) would always win if voting were mandatory. This seems like a result of interacting almost entirely with those of the party you favor, like people in 2004 who asserted that since no one they knew had voted for Bush, he must have won by fraud.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#253

Post by steveklabnik »

jamesteow wrote: post #245
steveklabnik wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny, I can't bring myself to vote because I can't find participating and legitimizing this morally acceptable.

I think that's a weird and very popular position. So you don't vote allowing OTHERS to decide the process for you. Other people who say, elect leaders who nominate Conservative Supreme Court Judges, who then side with the FEC allowing corporations to fund political advertisements. This was quite preventable. I mean good on you for standing to your principles but with a whole collective of intelligent people abstainin…

You're taking a single-issue view of this. No matter who I vote for, I will not be happy with the outcome. And it's roughly equal, all around. So the distinction is irrelevant. I am powerless to effect any kind of meaningful change.

Asking me to vote is like asking me "Do you still beat your wife?" in some sense. There's no good way out. The best option is to not reply.

That's not even getting into my philosophical issues with government in the first place.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#254

Post by jozo »

joelhaasnoot wrote: post #59
RiderOfGiraffes wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And for those who complain about not having the right to abstain, you can get the same effect by turning up and spoiling your ballot paper. You can even make a show of doing it so that everyone can see you're deliberately not casting a valid vote. That makes more of a point that staying home and being invisible.

This is actually legal in the Netherlands: just turn in a blank ballot.

In Sweden you can vote for whatever you want. It's quite humorous to read the results of these votes after the election, when they are published online. Normally this would be used by new parties who can't afford distributing printed ballots. Being Sweden someone of course had the xkcd-inspired(?) idea to try XSS and SQL-injection.

http://alicebobandmallory.com/articles/2010/09/23/did-little...

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#255

Post by Jun8 »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #231
siculars wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

I'm sorry that you're offended. However, stating that you are offended, and then re-asserting your belief in voting really doesn't do anything to show my where the error is in my argument. I'd have an easier time understanding where I've gone astray if you could address my two questions: 1. Is it immoral to vote by dice? 2. In what ways does an ignorant voter, reacting emotionally to propaganda, differ from voting by…

Seriously, I thought you were being tongue in cheek in your comments. If you're serious, then your idea of rating people according to some measure (you advocate some hazy notion of informedness, but it's not important what it is) and denying people who score low is outrageous. In fact, in principle, this is no different than saying blacks, or women, or gays, etc. should not vote!

Let me state it simply: Voting is a right given to a citizen who meets certain definitions (i.e. inmates cannot vote). It's not up to you, or me, or the government to dictate or judge what they will do with their vote. They can roll a dice, use Tarot cards, be influenced by O'Reilly, whatever. It's their right to use however they see fit.

Ideas like yours do great damage because they provide fuel to idiotic movements like the Tea Party.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#256

Post by RiderOfGiraffes »

Jun8 wrote: post #255
CWuestefeld wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry that you're offended. However, stating that you are offended, and then re-asserting your belief in voting really doesn't do anything to show my where the error is in my argument. I'd have an easier time understanding where I've gone astray if you could address my two questions: 1. Is it immoral to vote by dice? 2. In what ways does an ignorant voter, reacting emotionally to propaganda, differ from voting by…

Seriously, I thought you were being tongue in cheek in your comments. If you're serious, then your idea of rating people according to some measure (you advocate some hazy notion of informedness, but it's not important what it is) and denying people who score low is outrageous. In fact, in principle, this is no different than saying blacks, or women, or gays, etc. should not vote! Let me state it simply: Voting is a r…

  > Voting is a right given to a citizen who meets
  > certain definitions (i.e. inmates cannot vote).
The European Union has declared that preventing inmates from voting is an infringment of their human rights.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11671164

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#257

Post by anthuswilliams »

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…

Finally, someone after my own heart. I don't vote, not because I feel my vote is worthless, but because I resent the claim that there is a choice to be made. Democrats and Republicans talk like they hate each other, but once elected they pretty much pass the same sorts of policies.

It's in these politicians' best interest for people to get out and vote because it confers a veneer of legitimacy. But if a dictator holds an election in which he is the only candidate allowed to run, I would consider it a moral obligation to boycott the election. Similarly when there are two candidates who are, for all intents and purposes, equally undesirable, I refuse to vote for either.

Of course, if I were less lazy, I would investigate independent parties. But I don't feel these parties are fairly represented. For instance, the Democratic Party commonly sues to keep the Green Party off the ballot in a number of states. If everyone ignores this injustice and votes anyway, it appears as though the election was won fair and square.

Someone else on this thread pointed out that not voting is a vote. I feel the same. People attribute the low voting rate among Americans to an apathetic citizenry, but I think it can be better attributed to a broken system. I will not evaluate two poisons to elect the most nutritious. I won't do it.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#258

Post by nollidge »

lusis wrote: post #237
dools wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no reason to abstain in Australia because we have a preference system. In the States, when Nader ran against Gore it divided the Democrat vote and Bush won. The same thing doesn't happen in Australia so if you vote for a minor party because you really believe in their policies, although they may still preference a major party that you don't wholly agree with they still get funding based on the number of vote…

I have to call BS. This argument that third parties split the vote is nonsense. Me voting for a third-party candidate is does not imply that I would have voted for any other candidate had they not been on the ballot. Had that candidate not been on the ballot, I would have abstained from that particular position. It's like the BSA argument that people who steal software (yes it's stealing) would have normally bought t…

> Had that candidate not been on the ballot, I would have abstained from that particular position.

Really? If there were three candidates, one who was 95% in agreement with you, one who was 85%, and one who was 30%, and the 95% dropped out of the race, you would just NOT vote for the 85%?

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#259

Post by pjscott »

Alex3917 wrote: post #160
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…

Do people who have taken political philosophy 101 vote significantly differently than the rest of the population? I highly doubt it.

That's either a very encouraging statement about the population at large, or a seriously scary statement about how much useful stuff people actually learn from political philosophy 101.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#260

Post by frobozz »

mbreese wrote: post #228
frobozz wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"you may have a perfectly good grasp of the issues and who best represents your point of view"

Yes, and this is all you need to prove - an example of such a test would be the ability to match up policy statements to candidates. No need for a maths test.

Regarding the inability to read - If blind people can currently vote in your country, then the problem does not exist.

Post reply on HN