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

361–370 of 458 posts

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

#361

Post by TylerE »

JacobJans wrote: post #173
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'…

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.

Douglas Adams got this so right so long ago.

Paraphrasing: "The job of the galactic president is not to wield power, but to draw attention away from it."

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

#362

Post by nathancahill »

caseysoftware wrote: post #360
nathancahill wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I share the same perspective, but draw a different conclusion. Instead, educate the electorate, the first step of which is reversing Citizens United. Then, make voting as easy as signing up for Facebook (whether that means online or mail-in voting). An informed, active electorate is the single most terrifying thing to the Establishment.

US schools can't teach everyone to read, expecting them to be able to effectively teach complex topics that involve nuance - let alone opinions - is wishful thinking.

I'm not suggesting government sponsored education, rather, the absence of corporate and super PAC spending in down-ballot (and up-ballot) campaigns.

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

#363

Post by nathancahill »

TylerE wrote: post #361
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.

Douglas Adams got this so right so long ago. Paraphrasing: "The job of the galactic president is not to wield power, but to draw attention away from it."

A tired old bumper sticker quote that I wholeheartedly agree with. Right along with Mark Twain's "If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it."

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

#364

Post by PeCaN »

dexterdog wrote: post #71
PeCaN wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me know when we go a week without a security breach, and I'll let you know when online voting can be secure.

How has the track record on old fashioned voting been? Do we require a perfect replacement or a better one?

While conventional voting is far from great, the first time someone hacks an online vote is going to set it back for decades. It could be better now, but it almost has to be perfect to get people to switch.

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

#365

Post by cinquemb »

sbuttgereit wrote: post #349
jimrandomh wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other parts of the process also have shenanigans, yes. Those are worth fighting against, too. I have no problem with people making protest votes and am genuinely confused by your implication that I would have a problem with people turning in blank or random ballots.

I'm confused that you think that you have the right to tell me what to do. You don't. Not even by proxy to some "authority".

I find it kind of funny… as if "politics" can only decided by being prodded like chattel to voting booths.

History of man shows many effective ways of influencing governing systems on many different levels, some more violent than others… and with modern technology ways people could only imagine of in the distant past are possible (beyond the present skinner box of political theater most elections are, and arguably to some degree or another, have always been), of which most people (forget about those who even show up to a voting booth) will never be interested/knowledgeable on/have direct means to do anything about.

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

#366

Post by MikeNomad »

dragonwriter wrote: post #294
samstave wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need a TV channel/website that simply states the facts of the positions each politician holds, where they are from, when their elections are coming up and their voting record based on their supposed stance. There are SO many things that we can do. We invest supposedly in physical and technical infra, but never in political.... THAT is the revolution I want to see.

> We need a TV channel/website that simply states the facts of the positions each politician holds Even the politicians themselves don't portray this consistently, so the "facts" of that are often subject to doubt.

If you want to watch the sausage being made in real-time, there are a couple of channels of C-SPAN.

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

#367

Post by NathanOsullivan »

RijilV wrote: post #358
danieltillett wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you do like we do in Australia and hold the elections on a weekend :)

You've never been to a bar/coffee house/grocery store/etc on a weekend? Lots of people work the weekend, often it is those who are paid less and have more rigid schedules. Also you run into religious days where some are not able to perform work. Honestly it is a hard one to mandate as a single few hour window on a single day. Someone has to be working at hospitals for example. Maybe it should be election week

In Australia you are permitted to either vote early in person, or submit your vote by post if you are unable to vote on polling day due to work.

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

#368

Post by rtpg »

dragonwriter wrote: post #290
justinlardinois wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never mind that at the end of the day, the federal government has very little control over elections.

The Democratic Party doesn't just exist in federal government, so I'm not sure how that's relevant, whether or not its true.

Well looking at state legislatures, it kind of doesn't exist outside the federal gov't

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

#369

Post by bigger_cheese »

bobbles wrote: post #355
inanutshellus wrote: post #345

I'm likely to be flamed out of existence for saying this, but I'm against 100% voter turnout. A shocking number of people in my social circle get their political opinions by intuition. Never do they watch a debate, nor do they have any idea who the contenders are. When the primaries were running in my home state I asked several of my friends about their opinions and most of them only knew one person from each party t…

Coming from Australia where we have mandatory voting, you're missing one of the biggest benefits. When people are forced to vote, the parties HAVE to accommodate that not only their 'die hard fans' are going to get them through the election. It leads to far less extremist views from the parties, or if they are extremist, they often temper some of the points later to ensure they don't have a huge backlash during the e…

One argument I see often made most recently here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-14/why-do-we-have-a-two-p... is compulsory voting in Australia entrenches the dominance of Labor and the Coalition (the two established parties). However given the non-compulsory US political system is also dominated by two parties I'm not sure how true the argument is.

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

#370

Post by krisroadruck »

lewisl9029 wrote: post #334
Apofis wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely, honestly, I would turn out to vote for Bernie Sanders, but that is seeming to be less likely as time progresses. So, I won't be voting at all, since I could care less if either Clinton or Trump get elected. Clinton gets elected and the status quo doesn't change very much, Trump gets elected, and maybe---just maybe some people will begin to sit up and take action.

This stance I sometimes hear from Sanders supporters (and I'm one of them, though not a US citizen myself) completely baffles me. Why would a Sanders supporter want to risk putting someone like Trump in office (through inaction)? Asides from maybe the anti-establishment aspect, Trump and his proposed policies spits in the face of everything Sanders stands for. Even if we ignore his own dangerous, egomaniac tendencies…

It's probably confusing to you because you don't understand that there are people who dislike Hillary and Trump in equal measures. I think either will be a complete disaster but seeing as how it looks like I have no alternatives I refuse to dignify the election by wasting my time voting between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. The idea of vote for Hillary because she is slightly less evil than trump or the reverse is just not something I'm willing to do. They are both scum and I can't stomach endorsing either one in some kind of crazy game of russian roulette.
Post reply on HN