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

281–290 of 391 posts

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#281

Post by jswinghammer »

pjscott wrote: post #269
jswinghammer wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you really say that voting has made things better?

Hold on. What happened to your original claim that, by not voting, you were sending a stronger signal of your libertarian views than you would by showing up and voting for libertarian candidates? Did you concede that point, or are you still holding onto it, or what? Please pardon me if this seems obsessive-compulsive, but there's an interesting pathological form of "debate" where someone keeps throwing arguments out,…

Not sure I conceded it at all. I think that voting is futile and a waste of time. I also think that not voting communicates dissatisfaction with the current regime.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#282

Post by jmaygarden »

shinkansen wrote: post #153
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.

In fact some States (e.g. WA was like this) only allow voting by mail. Potentially disenfranchising perhaps; how do I vote if I'm homeless?

You'd go to a post office. If a homeless person can't figure that out, then they are uninformed. The US system doesn't work with uninformed voters. So, that's a win IMHO.

"Convinced that the people are the only safe depositories of their own liberty, and that they are not safe unless enlightened to a certain degree, I have looked on our present state of liberty as a short-lived possession unless the mass of the people could be informed to a certain degree." --Thomas Jefferson

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#285

Post by philwelch »

younata wrote: post #227
alain94040 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Generally, you're also allowed to register to vote where you go to college, too.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#286

Post by roc »

zavulon wrote: post #226
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 ma…

Then vote in local elections for candidates that will support preference voting and push the issue up the chain.

Further: there are more races on the ballot than the headline-grabbers; those smaller races have a lot more impact on your day-to-day life and you have a lot more impact over the outcome.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#287

Post by kungfooguru »

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…

Or read Marx.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#288

Post by CWuestefeld »

Jun8 wrote: post #272
NickPollard wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with limiting voting by knowledge or intelligence, I do think people are too quick to shun it without thought. If it's so wrong, explain why, rationally, not with an appeal to morality. Otherwise it reeks of 'What you can't say' [1]. Would you want an uninformed, unintelligent leader? If not, would you want uninformed, unintelligent people to choose a leader? Of course, I do agree tha…

I totally agree with you, nothing should be removed off the table without a rational discussion about possible merits. My philosophy is: everything should be discussed, nothing should be off-limits due to PC, or hurting a group's sensibilities. In this regard, controversial subjects such as gay marriage rights, right of Islam women to cover their heads in Europe (not much of an issue in the US), the injustice of affi…

Thanks for the measured response.

how do we determine the value: who should be allowed to vote

To be clear, I believe that everyone should be allowed to vote. I'd go so far as to say that even felons should be allowed to, for fear that the legal system could otherwise be used as a tool to stifle electoral dissent.

My suggestion that some people not cast a vote is intended to be entirely personal, as a matter of conscience and reflection. If anyone honestly believes that his ideas are the product of rational thought applied to an understanding of the situation, then by all means, cast that vote.

I don't think that your murky water criticism can apply, because I'm not asking -- nor trusting -- anyone else to judge. I'm asking for a person's own, honest, self-evaluation. No one else need know if you exercised this option or not, and it's none of their business.

Moreover, this doesn't relate to a single person monolithically. A person might have very well informed ideas about one topic, yet be ignorant about another. The decision ought to be made on a vote-by-vote basis. For example, this morning I did not cast a vote for County Freeholder. Although I know who the incumbent is, and don't have anything in particular against him, I don't know enough about county-level politics, nor the candidates, to make an informed decision, so I abstained. Yet I did cast a vote for US Representative, County Sheriff, etc.

I'm also sympathetic to the criticism that Dunning-Kruger might make this backfire.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#289

Post by forensic »

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…

The current system already has a licensing scheme.

Instead of it being based on education though it is based on wealth. The wealthy, behind closed doors, agree to a large extent on plausible policies for the country.

Then they present a limited set of alternatives and let the masses indicate which alternative makes them happiest.

The purpose of democracy is not to DECIDE anything. It is to give the illusion that the masses are in control. Without this illusion, they would turn violent.

Rest assured, the only policies the masses have control over are things that are emotionally potent but irrelevant: gay marriage, pledge of allegiance, etc. Distractions.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#290

Post by bradly »

I just don't think telling everyone to vote does any service to our/a country. Tell people to learn about the issues. Tell people to research the candidates. Then they will vote, and it won't be for the person on the sign they saw while driving to the polling place.
Post reply on HN