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

291–300 of 391 posts

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#291

Post by lmkg »

jswinghammer wrote: post #281
pjscott wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not voting communicates acceptance of the current regime. Voting for third-party/write-in candidates communicates dissatisfaction with the current regime, as it is a (symbolic) attempt to change it.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#292

Post by Jkeg »

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…

If you're serious, then your idea of rating people according to some measure and denying people who score low is outrageous.

Why would you so blatantly misrepresent what someone said? All CWuestefeld said is that if you don't know that much about politics, don't vote. Or does that somehow equate to denying someone the right to vote in your mind?

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#293

Post by lusis »

nollidge wrote: post #258
lusis wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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%?

It depends. I would typically vote for a candidate if his positions on other issues were not repulsive to me or if his stance really didn't matter at the federal level.

But I refuse to vote for a candidate because of a single plank or even 2 or 3 planks. I won't compromise on things like marriage equality or abortion rights. Those, while they should have no federal interferance at all, sadly are determined at the federal level. Same goes for economy.

But if the candidate has an opinion on, say, the Department of Education that I'm opposed to I might let it slide.

The point I was making is that is a case by case basis and more times than not, I've refused to vote for any candidate because I didn't want to send a message that I supported them at all.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#294

Post by aliston »

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…

A large number of voters voting by dice would have no effect on elections in which a plurality is required to win...

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#295

Post by T_S_ »

I moved back to my native USA from Australia about a year ago, after living there for 6 years. I also spent two years in the UK in the 90s. Some contrasts were interesting.

Majority rules in Australia and the UK. In the parlimentary system, the potential for gridlock is far less (Yes, the Aussie Senate does slow some things down.) However, the major candidates do have to say some specific things in order to get elected--because they then go and pass them into law. Look at what the UK is doing to their budget. Couldn't happen here. In the US, gridlock is so endemic elections are much more about personality and/or voter disgust.

Mandatory voting in Australia. A good thing I think. A lot of American politics seems to be about convincing you to stay home because your candidate is a louse. In the USA, you could have Ghandi running against Mandela and there would still be mudslinging and scandal mongering.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#296

Post by aralib »

cletus wrote: post #106
tjogin wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not against compulsory voting, but I'd just like to add that I don't think it's necessary in order to get a good voter turnout. We have voluntary voting in Sweden, and yet we get about 86% turnout. In the US, there are a number of problems with the voting procedure, too many to count really, I think facing and addressing those issues would be far better than making voting compulsory.

A few days ago there was a post on HN about how economists solved the problem of having prisoners live that were shipped from the UK to Australia 200 years ago: by giving the right incentive (paying for live prisoners at the other end and not just how many you load on in England). When voting is voluntary, certain groups are incentivized to encourage or discourage other groups from voting. This manifests itself as br…

hm.. "the problem of having prisoners live" doesn't sound right.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#297

Post by randallsquared »

afterburner wrote: post #280
randallsquared wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

From bad correlation to a false conclusion and a straw man argument. You're a pro. There is plenty of room in the setup of US elections for one party to have an advantage when turnout is low but still have varied results from year to year and region to region even when voting is mandated. But more importantly, even when you can get 60% of the popular vote in a 100% turnout election, lower turnout can still increase t…

if the low turnout meant proportionally more of the winning party voters turned out

But you did say "people in general", not "people likely to vote for party X", so your statement only makes sense if you think people in general vote for party X, which is the same as saying that party X would certainly win if everyone voted.

Maybe you misstated what you really meant to say, but I think the inference from what you actually did say was reasonable.

I almost didn't read any further when you began accusing me of making up straw men and being a professional (troll, I assume?). That certainly was a neat trick. :)

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#298

Post by Semiapies »

No.

There are no close races where I care about the outcome in my district. There are no initiatives I care to support or oppose.

I have fairly equal and tremendous disgust for both of the majority parties. On the issues I care about, I've bashed my head against reality enough to learn that the parties are indistinguishable in practice. I'm not going to trot down to the polls to give anyone a little thrill of excitement that they've gotten another vote for their preferred team.

Nor am I going to throw one of a handful of symbolic votes for a minority-party candidate for any office. The mainstream takes no notice of or interest in "third party" results, and any other interpretation of the supposed value of a symbolic vote is essentially an argument for magic.

I am not superstitious.

As for mandatory voting: Fuck you. I am not your mule; carry your own damn partisan water.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#299

Post by davorak »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #207
mcantelon wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you've never taken a class or read a book on economics, please don't vote. ... If you've never taken a class or read a book on political philosophy, please don't vote. If you're an elitist academic that thinks knowledge about how the world works can only be garnered via institutionalized knowledge, please don't vote. If you're willing to recommend that lower classes, made up predominantly of marginalized races, o…

Suppose that I go into the voting booth with a pair of dice, and use them to decide who to vote for. Am I morally correct in this approach? If a voter is reacting emotionally to propaganda, without taking the time to understand the real story, is this much different from rolling dice?

A person reacting to emotional propaganda is much worse then someone voting by dice.

A large group of people voting by dice do not effect the out of the election. A group of people reacting to emotional propaganda may very well vote all the same way and effect the election for irrational reasons.

The group of people who decide to self select themselves out of the voting process by ignorance are allowing the group swayed by propaganda to have a larger control of the vote.

Therefore do to the above mentioned effect and the Dunning-Kruger effect it is only rational not to vote if have evidence that your vote will do more damage then a random vote.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#300

Post by Semiapies »

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 anyone lacks the right to complain about "the next set of assholes", it's the people who actually voted them in, no matter what they put on their ballots.

Also, as a rather different brand of political fringe sort from members of the BNP, I admire your bold frankness in exhorting people to vote so that any ideas outside of the most mainstream are safely kept out of public debate.

Post reply on HN