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

361–370 of 391 posts

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#361

Post by Semiapies »

tjr wrote: post #359
Semiapies wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you can always hold out faith that they'll vote the way you want them to. Which is what you can see in the comments of this thread: hope that if more people voted, things would shift more left-wing, more right-wing, more centrist, etc. Pure wishful thinking, nothing more. (And the opposite side of the coin is shown by people bridling at suggestions that fewer people should vote and identifying such arguments as c…

I guess I don't understand what you're claiming. In the above example discussion, I was claiming that if an extra 1000 people who wouldn't have voted went ahead and did vote, then, depending on how they voted, either their extra votes would make a difference, or they would not make a difference. There is a possibility either way (even if the possibility of making a difference is smaller). On those grounds, I do not s…

I'm open to such suggestions, too.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#362

Post by Semiapies »

afterburner wrote: post #219
jasonkester wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about this: Of the topics being voted on that people have gone out of their way to promote, or that the media have covered, none of them struck my curiosity to the point where I feel compelled to dig further into them. I asked here, on the off chance that somebody has one that they think the HN audience might care about.

Congress votes on the budget, and all new laws or modifications to existing laws. You don't care if any of that gets effed up in ways you don't agree with?

Plenty.

The delusion that anyone is actually voting between "person who won't eff things up" and "person who will eff things up" is not useful, though.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#363

Post by jbooth »

jacoblyles wrote: post #352
jbooth wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love to hear how McCain-Feingold hurt you when it came to "fighting more established political interests". The inability to throw millions of soft money into the race made it harder to fight the established political interest? Or made it harder to harness established lobbyist interest? Under McCain-Feingold, candidates can self-fund for any amount, and donations are limited to $2300/head, that's $4600 for mar…

You should read John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty". It makes all my arguments for free political speech for me and in a much more elegant manner. It is self-evident that if you limit the amount of money that people can spend on advertising their political views that niche candidates and less popular ideas will be hurt the most. Unions can compel donations from their millions of members, your Clintons, Obamas, and McCain…

I'm about done here but can you really not see any potential conflicts of interest when you allow those who have the most money to flood the zone with hundred-million dollar ad buys? That doesn't offend any small-d democratic principles that you hold?

I want to re-regulate outside advertisements because they are almost always the product of shady dealings. Citizens United happened this year and we're setting records for the amount of money spent, during a frickin midterm. And guys like you complain about corruption in DC. No sense of irony?

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#364

Post by Semiapies »

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.

Instead, we have a system where the wolves elect a representative to determine who his supporters will have for dinner.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#365

Post by Semiapies »

jsz0 wrote: post #122
mynameishere wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying that's definitively the case It is definitely the case. In the rare instance when the vote is decided by one, rest assured a judge, and not the one, will settle the actual result. Voting is an absolutely pointless pyschological approval of two candidates, neither of whom was chosen democratically. If anyone is actually interested in influencing policy, which is the whole point, get out your checkbook.…

Local elections are very democratic. It's winner take all. None of this electoral college non-sense. The best opportunity an individual has to influence elections is to vote in the primaries but few people bother to show up. You'll have the choice of a dozen candidates or more -- most of whom have a very legitimate shot at getting the nomination. It's common for primaries to be decided by only a couple hundred votes…

It's the "extreme egotism" that involves not being interested in giving your team points just because you keep barking at me that I'm "obligated" to do so.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#366

Post by Semiapies »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #332
Jun8 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an interesting link, thanks. Although I think the ruling was a against a "blanket ban" on inmate voting and doesn't say that all inmates can vote. Need to have a better look, though. I got curious, so rather than going lunch, did some Wikipedia reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_Sta... . Turns out the right to vote cannot be denied based on : * Religion (in Constitution is…

fourteen states, eleven of them in the South, ban anyone with a felony conviction from voting for life I agree that this is heinous. Through this means, the political process can hijack the judicial system to eliminate dissent. This means, for example that anyone who had been convicted of sodomy (back when that was still a crime, and if it had been a felony) would be barred from participating in the democratic proces…

Considering both the disenfranchisement and disarmament of felons (as well as forced prisoner labor sold off to various business interests) were part of Jim Crow, I am.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#367

Post by Semiapies »

lmkg wrote: post #291
jswinghammer wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The belief that an attempt that cannot work and somehow creates an effect through symbolism is a belief in magic.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#368

Post by Semiapies »

tmcneal wrote: post #103

For those of you looking to do some last minute research before voting today, my web app provides candidate information along with information on the positions each candidate supports or opposes: http://elect.io

Very nice!

Sadly, it just reminded me who my options were...

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#369

Post by netcan »

mahmud wrote: post #15
cletus wrote: post #7

In Australia voting is mandatory. If you're registered to vote and you don't you can get fined. If no one is registered to vote at your address you'll tend to get lots of mail about it (but ultimately, staying off the electoral roll isn't difficult). I used to think this was a bad idea as it forced people to vote who didn't really care. In recent years I've come around to the opposite point of view based pretty much…

I am Yank, Arab and Somali (I hold three passports) and I will soon be an Aussie, via marriage. I have spent a year in Australia. My feeling is that Aussies are not really as political as Americans. American voting is under-informed and has low turn out, but at least the few percentage of electorate that vote actually care . Aussies .. I am not sure if they don't care, or if they're just good at hiding their politica…

Aussies downplay a lot of things, some Aussies anyway. They pretend they don't care, don't know, haven't worked hard on something, aren't affected etc. In some ways this is exactly opposite to Arabs.

Voluntary voting in the US has one strange effect: politicians no 1 goal is to get "their" group to vote. Each side has a relatively fixed (and roughly equal) group of voters. Most of them stay home. The side that gets their group voting, even at the expense of a few defections, wins. That creates weird politics.

However, that is not the case everywhere. In lots of places the paradigm is a fixed group (possibly a minority) of voters who shift alliances more easily. A multiparty system encourages this.

I suspect that most defectors are actual abstainers, not defectors.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#370

Post by MoreMoschops »

mahmud wrote: post #15
cletus wrote: post #7

In Australia voting is mandatory. If you're registered to vote and you don't you can get fined. If no one is registered to vote at your address you'll tend to get lots of mail about it (but ultimately, staying off the electoral roll isn't difficult). I used to think this was a bad idea as it forced people to vote who didn't really care. In recent years I've come around to the opposite point of view based pretty much…

I am Yank, Arab and Somali (I hold three passports) and I will soon be an Aussie, via marriage. I have spent a year in Australia. My feeling is that Aussies are not really as political as Americans. American voting is under-informed and has low turn out, but at least the few percentage of electorate that vote actually care . Aussies .. I am not sure if they don't care, or if they're just good at hiding their politica…

"you will have a hard time if you're a self-righteous prick"

So how come nobody has told those internet censor wankers that a joke's a joke, they've had their fun, and now it's time to get back in their box before they feel the back of your hand?

Post reply on HN