U.S. trails most developed countries in voter turnout (2018) • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by klmadfejno » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 1:43 PM UTC

KingOfCoders wrote: post #46

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 is not about winning.

1) bullshit. Voting is most definitely about winning. Less so in which systems which grant power proportional to the votes received, but true nonetheless. The president affects war, civil rights, corruption, inequality, culture, and numerous essential facets of society. Huge numbers of people don't like Joe Biden but will vote for him simply because they don't want trump to win. I probably would too if I lived in a swing state.

2) I've pretty clearly addressed that the are secondary components to voting like signalling your view. These views are largely ignored by the political process at the presidential level.

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

#52

Post by mtberatwork » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 1:55 PM UTC

jahaja wrote: post #4

zrail wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you want a system that actually allows politicians to work for their voters The people in power don’t actually want this.

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.

Yes, he tweeted it out even not too long ago: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/12661725709839401...

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

#53

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 3:21 PM UTC

unishark wrote: post #49

Someone wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#54

Post by Someone » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 3:29 PM UTC

unishark wrote: post #49

Someone wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For the USA, I’m fairly sure it’s more the idea that it’s not the government’s concern where people live. Why would free citizens have to tell the government where they live?

For the UK, it might be more the UK mantra “if it ain’t completely and utterly broke, don’t fix it”. They tend to love traditions, even if they have become somewhat impractical.

For the UK, keeping a central register also was a bit easier than one would think, as women and most men didn’t have the right to vote until the middle/late 19th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1867:

“Before the Act, only one million of the seven million adult men in England and Wales could vote; the Act immediately doubled that number. Moreover, by the end of 1868 all male heads of household were enfranchised as a result of the end of compounding of rents.”

(If I understand it correctly, “compounding of rents” is where landlords pay the property taxes that renters have to pay, increasing rent accordingly. Because only those paying property tax were eligible to vote, a side effect was that many renters weren’t allowed to vote)

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

#55

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 3:45 PM UTC

klmadfejno wrote: post #50

specialist wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

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

#56

Post by specialist » Thu, Jun 04, 2020, 3:48 PM UTC

klmadfejno wrote: post #50

specialist wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I acknowledge and accept your choice to opt-out.

For future, please consider your local-most issues, policies, politics. I guarantee you will have an impact.

Ages ago I got worked up about a pet issue, became an activist, then graduated into politics, then policy.

Retail, local, face-to-face politics and policy isn't anything like what people assume. It still sucks, because politics.

But it's also amazing. My org does endorsement interviews. Dozens every year. Meeting and talking to judicial candidates, ranging from local to state supreme courts, has been the best civics lesson I've ever gotten. For example.

And I've also had the chance to support many up-and-comers, some who will surely become Representatives, Senators, and Governors. And they've heard progressive views on election integrity and voting rights from someone they know and trust, during their formative years.

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

#57

Post by 082349872349872 » Fri, Jun 05, 2020, 9:01 AM UTC

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.

Holding to account: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Council_(Switzerland)#...

Could you please elaborate on "remit"? I'm not sure what you mean.

General information: https://www.ch.ch/en/demokratie/political-rights/referendum/

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

#58

Post by wickedwiesel » Fri, Jun 05, 2020, 10:22 AM UTC

zeveb wrote: post #37

Is this really relevant, though? Republican democracy means that the people are sovereign within the laws they themselves have set up and may change; universal suffrage means that everyone[0] may vote. But isn't the choice not to vote itself just as much of a signal as voting? I know that some countries have compulsory voting, but that has always rubbed me the wrong way. If someone simply wishes to sit out, that seem…

In direct response to your first point, I would argue that it is you right to not vote. That being said, as it is THE fundamental right in democracies, you should not need to jump through any hoops whatsoever to vote. Especially as evidence suggests this leads to the people in power making use of that to stay in power.

On a side note: the idea that felons are unable to vote strikes me as totally wrong. What's the reasoning behind that? Why on Earth would you do that to a person? I cannot think of any scenario where this does not only have negatives consequences (alienating convicted felons even further from communities etc.). The only upside is pandering to those who feel that punishment is an important aspect of criminal justice. (This in itself deserves debate.)