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

371–380 of 458 posts

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

#371

Post by sverige »

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…

When I was younger, I got deeply involved in local, county, and state politics. I even ran for office once, was treasurer for a congressional campaign, and was on county and state executive committees. I met governors, senators, presidential candidates, and one sitting president. I had a well-informed opinion on any issue you can name, and changed positions on many of them as I got older.

What did I learn? When I got to personally know all these politicians, including their unguarded utterances, I learned they don't give a shit about anything but power and money. Not one really cares about my family or anyone else I care about, except for their vote. Not one.

Fuck voting. It's pointless.

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

#372

Post by duncan_bayne »

To the vote.org people who are here - have you ever considered throwing your weight behind alternative democratic mechanisms, like sortition, for selecting representatives?

This would have the effect of considering all eligible citizens for Government, thereby mitigating many of the problems with voter turnout.

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

#373

Post by drewrv »

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…

Require a test to vote, and the test authors now rule the country.

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

#374

Post by ACow_Adonis »

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…

As an Australian, compulsory voting is widely accepted and touted here as a good thing, so even questioning the rhetoric surrounding it is likely going to get you mobbed, even if you try to preface with the statement that you don't necessarily think it's bad, you just aren't convinced it's necessarily or demonstrably good.

But I'm not certain that it's connected in any way to less "extreme" policies in any empirical way beyond such reasoning being a local culturally embedded myth.

Of course, there's no definition of what an extreme position is, because middle, left and right themselves have no objective meaning.

And for the non-Australians, just do a Google Search for "Pacific Solution" and judge for yourselves how full of shit we may/may not be...

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

#375

Post by yompers888 »

avivo wrote: post #356
yompers888 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parent might be saying the media supports this fallacy by the amount of coverage given. With the huge number of resources available online for information, I would suggest that the perception of media as only covering presidential elections means that you need to work a little harder and find news sources that give you more valuable content. And if your desired news source doesn't exist, think about making it. For ex…

That's a really great story. I'm curious if this guy gets paid at all for this, if he just does it in addition to a day job, and perhaps family, etc. Can you share the link to his page? I'm also also curious if there (ever) was a town newspaper.

Actually, there still is a town newspaper! I used to read it through every morning, which took very little time considering its size. I feel that this guy covers local politics much better than the local paper ever did. He also shares some interesting events, and does so quickly. Plus, with his updates, you really feel like there's stuff going on, despite it being a small, pretty sleepy town.

Here's the link: http://facebook.com/Waynesboro

I haven't contacted the guy, but I believe he does it on the side. I've been meaning to get in touch with him to learn about him and maybe coordinate with him. The town is looking very seriously at building a new high school on the outskirts of town, losing the current strong location and sending the town deep into debt in the process, which they justify because the current school has some leaks in the roof and, as a 1930s building, doesn't have any flashy new technology built into the classrooms. I've talked with some friends at length about this, and we all had pretty much the same feelings. The last thing you want to do is encourage teachers to spend less time at the board, and more showing PowerPoint; centuries-old buildings are perfectly good places for class, as each of us experienced in college; and they're desperately looking for a cure-all, when the reality is that you have a major demographics shift when you no longer have the huge DuPont plant keeping a herd of engineers in town.

On the other hand, it's a beautiful location, it's incredibly cheap to live and buy a home, and the town has been shifting its development patterns in the last ten or so years. The long lost downtown area is coming back to life, streets are being built with bike space, and narrower so cars are less encouraged to speed, and they're starting to emphasize the great parks, river, and proximity to the mountains.

Finally, when you go there, you're struck by how much a single person could really turn the whole place around and onto an incredible trajectory.

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

#376

Post by sverige »

davekinkead wrote: post #305
valvar wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why exactly is democracy the best, or shall we say "least bad", option? Have you, or has Churchill, evaluated all of the alternatives? And how does the belief that you air in your last sentence, that government should reflect all the people it serves, rhyme with your belief that the ideal (but admittedly in your opinion impossible) form of government would be one run by benevolent geniuses who always implement the ri…

To address your first question, the actual quote is: > Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. So it's not a claim that democracy is the least worst simpliciter, but an empiri…

Correct. The very best form of government is a good king with final say on all matters of importance to the state. The problem with that is that there have only been a handful of good kings over the last few millennia.

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

#377

Post by abfan1127 »

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…

how do they make it mandatory? Is there a voting police?

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

#378

Post by sverige »

danieltillett wrote: post #338
laxatives wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No that isn't a solution or comprimise I'm comfortable with. I'm not saying itst my responsibility to cut losses and do what's best for everyone. I'm saying this system is broken and I won't be a part of it.

Unless you give up your citizenship and leave the country you are part of the political process. Yes you might believe the system is broken, but by not voting you are saying you don’t care and you are effectively giving half a vote each to the top two candidates. I am sure this is not what you intended to do. If all the choices on offer are so bad that you can’t choose a candidate to vote against then write in a cand…

To address your first assertion, I am a citizen whether I vote or not. By not voting, I am consciously choosing not to be part of the political process, at least that part of the process where I vouch for a politician by giving them my vote.

And I can't name a single person I want to associate my name with by voting for them.

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

#379

Post by sverige »

chiaro wrote: post #318
laxatives wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No that isn't a solution or comprimise I'm comfortable with. I'm not saying itst my responsibility to cut losses and do what's best for everyone. I'm saying this system is broken and I won't be a part of it.

>I won't be a part of it. You are though, mate. You don't have a choice in the matter.

Yes, I do have a choice to not participate by not voting.

In Soviet Union, party crush people like me since hurts lie that all support them.

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

#380

Post by mjgoins »

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…

Uh yeah, the US had tests. They were there to prevent black people from voting.
Post reply on HN