Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. trails most developed countries in voter turnout (2018)

pewresearch.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 58 posts

Re: U.S. trails most developed countries in voter turnout (2018)

#41

Post by syshum »

willis936 wrote: post #13
jahaja wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump said it out loud didn't he? That the republican party would cease to exist, or similar, if voting-by-mail were widely allowed.

It’s what we all know: current GOP ideals do not line up with majority representation. The GOP would be forced to change its policy to fall in line with the people’s will: a true tragedy, I know. We currently have a tyranny of minority.

Would this imply that the democrat party does align with the majority? If you believe that, this is not my experience.

For me personally, as a libertarian, I would say I agree with about 60% with the GOP platform, and about 20-30% with the Democrat platform. this used to be higher but the recent misadventure of the democrats in to "democratic socialism" and other left authoritarian policy positions has seen me really want to pull back from and oppose the democratic party more so then I have in the past

Re: U.S. trails most developed countries in voter turnout (2018)

#42

Post by nocturnial »

Someone wrote: post #25
docdeek wrote: post #5

Interesting that % of registered voters that vote in the US is incredibly high (86%) even if the number of registered voters is low (hence the low % of eligible voters actually voting). 86% is right up there with countries like Belgium and Australia where voting is compulsory and the obligation to vote (or turn up at a polling place…) is enforced. Switzerland seems odd on the face of it to me - what explains low turn…

I don’t think Belgium enforces showing up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting#Modern_era : “in practice fines are no longer issued for non-voters” Switzerland is a confederation and has lots of referendums, where the entire population decides on a policy, not on who should decide on policies. Both limit the power of the national government. However, reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzer…

Belgium does not prosecute people not showing up. I can say that for a fact.

But if they prosecuted you, here's what you are facing:

(In art. 210 "kieswetboek" or "voting law book" for our english readers)

For a first offense, the judge may verbally reprimand you! (oh noes!) In extreme circumstance, they could give you a fine. That fine is less than a speeding ticket or the fine the city council could give you for... let's say... "eating a sandwich while sitting on the stairs in front of a public building" (?!).

Should you persist in your "evil" and "devilish" ways and got called before a judge 4 (four) times for not voting. Then they can take away your right to vote for 10 years[1]. This is the equivalent of saying: "Oh, you don't want to vote! Now you don't get to vote and won't be prosecuted for it"

The low fines, even if the judge imposed them, and the ridiculousness of this article made prosecutors say: "We got better things to do". So the law is: everyone needs to vote, but if you feel strongly about not voting... we're not going to bother.

[1] It is bit more complicated than that. But for most citizens who don't want to vote, it wouldn't make a difference.

Re: U.S. trails most developed countries in voter turnout (2018)

#43

Post by wmkn »

vinay427 wrote: post #27
jahaja wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people even need to register to vote? In Sweden every eligible voter receive their "voting card" by mail a couple of weeks before an election.

There's no common official record on where someone lives in the US, as well as many other countries in the anglosphere. You don't officially register at an address when you move there, although updating drivers licenses which are state issued are sometimes optionally connected to voter registrations (which are often county or municipality-managed).

> There's no common official record on where someone lives in the US

When a US colleague transferred from our US office to our European office they were surprised and a little shocked that they were required to register their address with the local authorities. They felt that the government had no right to know where they lived.

For me, as a European, I was quite surprised about the opposite. How is it possible to have a functioning government without proper records about who lives where?

Only after the realization that the US does not keep records about who lives where did things like voter registration make sense to me.

Re: U.S. trails most developed countries in voter turnout (2018)

#44

Post by willis936 »

syshum wrote: post #41
willis936 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s what we all know: current GOP ideals do not line up with majority representation. The GOP would be forced to change its policy to fall in line with the people’s will: a true tragedy, I know. We currently have a tyranny of minority.

Would this imply that the democrat party does align with the majority? If you believe that, this is not my experience. For me personally, as a libertarian, I would say I agree with about 60% with the GOP platform, and about 20-30% with the Democrat platform. this used to be higher but the recent misadventure of the democrats in to "democratic socialism" and other left authoritarian policy positions has seen me really…

In this moment, to me, it seems strange to agree with 60% of republican policy but to to disagree with 70% democratic policy on the grounds of authoritarianism.

Re: U.S. trails most developed countries in voter turnout (2018)

#45

Post by specialist »

klmadfejno wrote: post #19
KingOfCoders wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voting is a citizen act and never meaningless.

It is useful for signalling. It is meaningless on the actual election outcome. If everyone disenfranchised voted for people they thought were good but unlikely to win, you'd maybe get enough of a signal to change the party line in future elections. But that's incredibly hard and similarly meaningless at small scale. Getting people to vote for first order effects is difficult. Try getting them to vote for second order…

Voting gives the process legitimacy. Consent of the governed and all that.

Re: U.S. trails most developed countries in voter turnout (2018)

#46

Post by KingOfCoders »

klmadfejno wrote: post #19
KingOfCoders wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voting is a citizen act and never meaningless.

It is useful for signalling. It is meaningless on the actual election outcome. If everyone disenfranchised voted for people they thought were good but unlikely to win, you'd maybe get enough of a signal to change the party line in future elections. But that's incredibly hard and similarly meaningless at small scale. Getting people to vote for first order effects is difficult. Try getting them to vote for second order…

Voting is not about winning.

Re: U.S. trails most developed countries in voter turnout (2018)

#47

Post by syshum »

willis936 wrote: post #44
syshum wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would this imply that the democrat party does align with the majority? If you believe that, this is not my experience. For me personally, as a libertarian, I would say I agree with about 60% with the GOP platform, and about 20-30% with the Democrat platform. this used to be higher but the recent misadventure of the democrats in to "democratic socialism" and other left authoritarian policy positions has seen me really…

In this moment, to me, it seems strange to agree with 60% of republican policy but to to disagree with 70% democratic policy on the grounds of authoritarianism.

Well lets take a few issues.

For example by and large I agree with the current actions of the Republicans and Trump in the realm of Foreign / trade Policy. While I am not a huge fans of tariff's our trade agreements have been lopsided not in the favor of the US for many decades now. It was not in anyway a fair or "free" trade, they here gifts to large multinational corporate looking to lower labor costs and avoid environmental regulations that their smaller competitors could not

I am also 100% anti-intervention so Trump pulling the military out of many nations I am 100% in agreement with, something the Democrats just a few years ago also agreed with but modern democrats can not be seen sharing any position with the Orange Man at all, ever.

Now on the domestic Front. I am largely in-favor of the Corporate Tax Cuts, Largely in favor of most of the Deregulation that has occurred. I have largely agreed with Trumps Supreme Court Nominees.

Immigration and Law Enforcement is the 2 area's I disagree with the GOP on, with immigration however democrats have gone off the deep in wanting to open up all Social Welfare programs to anyone that want to come here from anywhere. I 100% oppose that as it is economically unfeasible. I support the idea of open immigration as long as spending on Social welfare programs is controlled. I also oppose the creation of a new Universal Healthcare entitlement which is a cornerstone of the Democrat party platform

When it comes to domestic law Enforcement I oppose the GOP almost completely.

Re: U.S. trails most developed countries in voter turnout (2018)

#48

Post by 082349872349872 »

C1sc0cat wrote: post #32
082349872349872 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My explanation for swiss voter turnout: if it ain't broke don't fix it. Two anecdotes: - the presidency rotates among members of the executive committee, on a yearly basis. Cynically, the president exists so if a foreign head of state wants to have dinner, they have someone with whom to do it. - when a referendum comes to the ballot, we don't just have to vote it up or down. The government gets a chance to say "yes,…

Oh so you have a "remit" option then - cool So how do the electorate hold the executive to account if they say the will do x instead of y but actually do nothing or something else entirely? Can you have a reference back on a subsequent referendum to a motion that was remitted in a previous referendum - that's technically the democratic way to do it.

By the time they get to the national level in their party, politicians generally have a track record, and don't tend to surprise.

See the link zubspace gave above about collegiality (Concordance); what I've referred to as the "executive committee" is exactly the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Council_(Switzerland)

As to your specific questions, I'll do some research for the details and get back to you...

Re: U.S. trails most developed countries in voter turnout (2018)

#49

Post by unishark »

Someone wrote: post #29
stefan_ wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hilarious how deeply ingrained the insanity is. Registering to vote is just not a thing outside the US. The percentage of people who come to vote, then vote is all of them .

That’s because the USA doesn’t have a formal registry of where its citizens live ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resident_registration#United_S... ) They simply cannot send every citizen a letter (or email). (The UK is in the same boat)

Both are of course among the word's oldest democracies so were set up when just convenient ideas like maintaining a big book of everyone's names or mailing ballots to everyone was surely impossible.

There have been lots of updates though. Several states allow same-day registration and at least one state does not require registration at all.

Re: U.S. trails most developed countries in voter turnout (2018)

#50

Post by klmadfejno »

specialist wrote: post #45
klmadfejno wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is useful for signalling. It is meaningless on the actual election outcome. If everyone disenfranchised voted for people they thought were good but unlikely to win, you'd maybe get enough of a signal to change the party line in future elections. But that's incredibly hard and similarly meaningless at small scale. Getting people to vote for first order effects is difficult. Try getting them to vote for second order…

Voting gives the process legitimacy. Consent of the governed and all that.

That is precisely the problem. I don't give either of the two viable presidential candidates consent to govern. They're illegitimate to me. There are also no particularly noteworthy third party candidates on the radar to offer a throwaway signalling vote.

MLK said a riot is the language of the unheard. Huge swaths of the country are completely ignored. I'm not one of the ones particularly suffering for that, but it's deeply frustrating.

Post reply on HN