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

371–380 of 391 posts

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#371

Post by expeditious »

mdwrigh2 wrote: post #98
random42 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think its a cultural thing. Most people in the US (In my very uninformed opinion, mostly based on television/movies), are very explicit in their political stand. In India, its assumed almost sinful to ask for political stance/ "Who are you gonna vote for" in the urban society. (It may be illegal too, not sure)

In the US, asking who someone who they're going to vote for is still taboo (at least in my opinion), they're just more likely to tell you their political stance. Plus, it's pretty easy to determine based on any number of things (do they talk about what they heard on the news last night? how do they view the current administration? government in general?). Granted, I'm not American, but I think I've been here long eno…

In the US, very infrequently does anyone ask anyone else who they're voting for. In fact, talking about politics can very quickly turn into a nasty argument.

You're also correct about generally being able to tell someone's political leaning.

Another thing is that the 2 parties (republican and democrat) are very clearly opposed and distinct. And every republican I know very strongly identifies with being a republican (and my guess is that they vote republican unquestioningly straight across the ballot). Surmise from that what you will.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#372

Post by philwelch »

Semiapies wrote: post #354
philwelch wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure a lot of bad politicians were elected by stupid or evil voters (i.e. bad citizens).

Prove it. Wait, you can't - you can't even identify the "stupid" or "evil" voters except by circularly defining them as "people who voted for bad politicians". For that matter, you can't identify the "good" ones except for "the ones who voted for good politicians".

I'm not making a circular definition at all. I'm just saying that bad politicians can be elected by good people (who are naive or deceived), but they can also be elected by bad people (who agree with the bad politician's bad aims, for instance).

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#373

Post by etherael »

MoreMoschops wrote: post #370
mahmud wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because it's largely inaccurate and Australia is packed with self-righteous pricks, they're just self-righteous about things other than the author originally implied.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#374

Post by andymorris »

MoreMoschops wrote: post #370
mahmud wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The subset of us aussies who actually know about censorship largely have.

The trouble is, there isn't enough of us who care.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#375

Post by andymorris »

lusis wrote: post #293
nollidge wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fed…

The only message that not voting for anyone sends is that you're happy with anyone.

If everyone informed chooses not to vote for anyone, all that does is give more power to the uninformed.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#376

Post by smokey_the_bear »

tjogin wrote: post #64
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'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.

I'm 28 and voting is important to me, but I've missed voting in three November elections because I didn't register in time. I've lived at different addresses every single year. The system is set up to dissuade renters from voting. Except in the few states that allow election day registration.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#377

Post by whackedspinach »

I am not old enough to vote yet, but I did spend 15 hours today as an election judge. While I felt that there was a decent turnout for our precinct, I did not see as many young people as I expected. There were a lot of elderly people that showed up, including some that had so much trouble completing the ballot that they may have been better off with an absentee ballot. I saw a few first-time/young voters, but I just don't think many of them feel this election is important because it is not a presidential election.

Get out there and vote next time, kids.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#378

Post by andymorris »

joelmichael wrote: post #70

I vote and believe in voting, but this thread makes me think that most people haven't really thought through the philosophy behind voting. Those who feel that voting is an irrational sham are not going to care about your "obligation," and you come off looking like a laughably naive jerk in condemning them for failing to do their civic duty. Mandatory voting is disagreeable for the same reason mandatory anything is: i…

I'm Australian, and we have compulsory voting. We also have compulsory education, as one of the basic requirements for democracy is a body informed voters.

I think one of the positive effects of it is that it forces everyone to think about it. I know people who I can guarantee would not vote were it not compulsory, but since it is they have looked into both parties and have formed some opinions which they then use to guide their votes. I think that anything that increases the overall political knowledge of the population is a good thing.

Another positive effect is that politicians don't need to spend any time getting people to the polls - this is something I see American politicians and citizens waste an absurd amount of time on.

Anyway, the fines in Australia are pretty small - I missed a state election once (moved and forgot to update the electoral roll) and it was around $20.

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#379

Post by andymorris »

shasta wrote: post #137
rsbrown wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

David Foster Wallace said better than I: "If you are bored and disgusted by politics and don't bother to vote, you are in effect voting for the entrenched Establishments of the two major parties, who please rest assured are not dumb, and who are keenly aware that it is in their interests to keep you disgusted and bored and cynical and to give you every possible psychological reason to stay at home doing one-hitters a…

Eloquent and wrong. Voting for anything other than one of the two entrenched parties is usually a waste of time and gasoline. There is no cabal of evil masterminds responsible for cynicism and apathy - it's an emergent property of the rules of the game. If you can join forces with like-minded citizens in support an idea that you believe in, as part of a movement that could change national policies for the better, the…

According to wikipedia, nearly of americans didn't vote.

It doesn't seem to make sense to say that voting for a 3rd party is a waste of time if half of the population who agree with you...

Re: Remind HN: Vote

#380

Post by andymorris »

Semiapies wrote: post #367
lmkg wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As is believing that politicians would interpret a low voter turnout as anything but a net gain - it just means they can expend less effort required to shift the balance in their favour.
Post reply on HN