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

391–400 of 458 posts

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

#391

Post by ncraun »

yompers888 wrote: post #375
avivo wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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://…

Never thought I'd run into another person from Waynesboro on Hacker News of all places. But, I guess I'm here so there's at least two of us. Small world after all.

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

#392

Post by davekinkead »

abfan1127 wrote: post #377
bobbles wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The AEC manages the federal election roll. Enrolling is technically compulsory for all citizens but only seems to be enforceable once you are on the roll.

Failure to get your named crossed of a a voting booth (voting isn't compulsory - turning up is) results in a $50 fine.

http://www.aec.gov.au/

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

#393

Post by formula1 »

sverige wrote: post #371
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…

Though I respect your real life experiences have caused a rationalized apathy. I personally do not believe that inaction is ever the correct course of action. So, instead of voting what would you suggest? Attempt to grow a fourth party? Encourage watchdog mentality? Make sure politicians fear the people they represent?

What do you suggest? Get fat on potato chips and hope the world falls apart in a humorous way?

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

#394

Post by LordKano »

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…

I too an opposed to encouraging the uninformed to vote just because.

I differ with you on some points. I do not watch the debates either. I don't watch the debates because I pay attention all of the time, not just during the election cycle. I care about a limited number of issues and I keep track of where politicians stand on those issues when they're not running for office.

It's not that I'm not informed. I am more informed than most of the people I know. It's just that I don't care one way or the other about how strongly a politician denounced some other jerk's controversial opinion when I step into the voting booth. That's the kind of gotcha issue that the primaries have started to feature.

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

#395

Post by dragonwriter »

rtpg wrote: post #368
dragonwriter wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Looking at legislatures, plenty where the Democrats are more powerful at the State level then they are in Congress.

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

#396

Post by specialist »

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…

The fix to low-information voting is to disenfranchise everyone who doesn't share your values, worldview? In other words, maintain the status quo.

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

#397

Post by specialist »

sverige wrote: post #371
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…

I came away with the opposite lesson. Everyone should run for office at least once. Once you see how the game is played, everything makes sense.

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

#398

Post by chiaro »

sverige wrote: post #379
chiaro wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

...and in Capitalist America, party ignores people like you since indistinguishable from apathy and laziness.

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

#399

Post by specialist »

samstave wrote: post #291
dublinben wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every campaign website I have ever seen clearly explains the candidates position on all relevant issues. If you are looking for third party sources, you can also see the information compiled be VoteSmart.org and OnTheIssues.org. Your state's Secretary of State office will list upcoming elections, and BallotPedia.org collects many of these. The resources are already out there and available. It says something that you…

Thank you, let me amend my statement and we just need to better educate people on where to find this info.

Some of the struggle is due to silly arcana. For example, the local deadline for submitting candidate statements is immediately after filing week, but before endorsements can be known. So crucial signals voters rely on are often missing.

The only fix is to keep pushing for improvements. Explain the problems to the gatekeepers, lobby for change.

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

#400

Post by enraged_camel »

luizlopes wrote: post #283
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.

I couldn't agree more. Local elections matter a lot. Especially when local elections in places like Seattle, WA are generating insane amounts of campaign money.

Local elections matter, but the direction of the country is determined at the federal level. That's why there's so much media coverage of it.

That, and the Supremacy Clause. Whatever local laws you vote for are superseded by federal law. By definition, this means federal elections matter a lot more than local elections (even though local elections have a more immediate short-term impact on the populace).

Post reply on HN