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

61–70 of 458 posts

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

#61

Post by laxatives »

debracleaver wrote: post #2

Hey everyone. Debra Cleaver here, founder of Vote.org. I am ready to answer all of your questions about voting in the US, as long as they are non-partisan. Partisan questions should be directed to your local political party. I'm especially keen to talk about ways we can use technology to modernize the election process. My current focus is how we can use electronic signatures to roll out online voter registration in s…

Maybe this is or isn't non-partisan, but here's a shot: I'm 25 years old. I've never voted and never will vote as long as there is a two party system. There has never been a situation where I can agree with either party or individual enough to support them in an election. How do you intend to get people like me to vote?

Also, if you did you get everyone to vote, wouldn't every vote turn in to a popularity contest? In other words, why wouldn't every candidate attempt to win their elections by appealing to the lowest common denominator?

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

#62

Post by cloudjacker »

debracleaver wrote: post #2

Hey everyone. Debra Cleaver here, founder of Vote.org. I am ready to answer all of your questions about voting in the US, as long as they are non-partisan. Partisan questions should be directed to your local political party. I'm especially keen to talk about ways we can use technology to modernize the election process. My current focus is how we can use electronic signatures to roll out online voter registration in s…

I read this article and I still don't see the "why". It says "because there are big problems people want changed", this doesn't answer why you want to increase voter turnout.

For example, in America, the will of the people only influences change when it coincidentally is aligned with special interest will. Every other time special interests are more influential than the voting public.

This would undermine a theory that voter turnout is even a solution.

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

#63

Post by jimrandomh »

There's a very important reason to do this which no one has brought up. US elections have a lot of vote-suppression shenanigans; in some noteworthy cases (including the 2000 Presidential election), fraudulently removing voter registrations, understaffing and obstructing poll locations changed the outcome. This sort of thing becomes much more difficult to execute and much more difficult to get away with if there's an expectation of 100% turnout, as in countries which have mandatory voting; large asymmetric chunks of the population failing to reach the polls no longer look plausibly innocent. I think mandatory voting is worth having for that reason alone, in addition to the other reasons.

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

#64

Post by debracleaver »

strommen wrote: post #40
debracleaver wrote: post #2

Hey everyone. Debra Cleaver here, founder of Vote.org. I am ready to answer all of your questions about voting in the US, as long as they are non-partisan. Partisan questions should be directed to your local political party. I'm especially keen to talk about ways we can use technology to modernize the election process. My current focus is how we can use electronic signatures to roll out online voter registration in s…

Do you know of studies or other hard data that tracks _why_ people don't vote? The article claims it is the difficulty of the process, but I would have guessed the top reason is voter apathy (which isn't really a technology issue). Here's one thing technology could help with: identify which polling places are facing long delays on Election Day, so additional resources can be allocated to speed them up. Without being…

oh sure. there are a wealth of studies out there. it's hard to say why any particular person doesn't vote, but there are some trends that show when voting is easier, more people vote. Colorado, Washington and Oregon all moved toward vote-by-mail systems, in which a ballot is automatically mailed to a voter's house, and saw an immediate increase in voter turnout.

Honestly, I'm waited to see the outcome of Oregon's automatic voter registration efforts on turnout. My guess is that Oregon will continue to lead the way with high turnout. I could be wrong, of course, but there's nothing that suggests that making voting easier would decrease turnout.

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

#65

Post by debracleaver »

labster wrote: post #36
debracleaver wrote: post #2

Hey everyone. Debra Cleaver here, founder of Vote.org. I am ready to answer all of your questions about voting in the US, as long as they are non-partisan. Partisan questions should be directed to your local political party. I'm especially keen to talk about ways we can use technology to modernize the election process. My current focus is how we can use electronic signatures to roll out online voter registration in s…

Debra, how would you feel about an Australian-style fine for failure to vote here in the U.S.? I assume Vote.org work primarily on technological ways to promote voting, but will it also deal with social structural or institutional ways to increase voter turnout?

labster, compulsory voting would be amazing in the US. i might be in the minority here, but i consider voting a duty, not a right per se.

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

#66

Post by hnamazon123 »

cloudjacker wrote: post #62
debracleaver wrote: post #2

Hey everyone. Debra Cleaver here, founder of Vote.org. I am ready to answer all of your questions about voting in the US, as long as they are non-partisan. Partisan questions should be directed to your local political party. I'm especially keen to talk about ways we can use technology to modernize the election process. My current focus is how we can use electronic signatures to roll out online voter registration in s…

I read this article and I still don't see the "why". It says "because there are big problems people want changed", this doesn't answer why you want to increase voter turnout. For example, in America, the will of the people only influences change when it coincidentally is aligned with special interest will. Every other time special interests are more influential than the voting public. This would undermine a theory th…

The successes of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump would seem to contradict your thesis.

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

#67

Post by lujim »

Hi Debra,

I've always been skeptical of these kind of "rock the vote" initiatives because I believe they motivated not by a overall altruistic love of democracy, but a motivation to sway elections towards the organizations favored political party. What are your thoughts?

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

#68

Post by natrius »

redthrowaway wrote: post #12

Not to sound elitist, but is that really a good thing? What sorts of people are going to be simultaneously not motivated to vote, and good at picking the best candidate?

I am skeptic of electoral democracy, but as long as we're doing it, aiming for 100% turnout is the only option. The incentives in electoral democracy reward those who marginalize voters who disagree with them, and it's far easier to marginalize the powerless than the powerful. This is an unacceptable outcome, yet we've done it since the founding of the republic, and we still do it today.

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

#69

Post by debracleaver »

ohitsdom wrote: post #43
debracleaver wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

seth, it's feasible, but not with existing technology. i'm off-hand, somewhat flippant rule of thumb is that this isn't something we can realistically discuss until we can go a single week without a major security breach. right now breaches are so common that they barely merit a news mention. once we're there in terms of security, however, i am confident that we will see a radical increase in voter turnout.

I get that security is a major, major concern but scanning headlines seems like a really poor metric for deciding when technology is "ready". There will always be bad/rushed/under-staffed developers and bad business decisions that lead to security breaches. That doesn't mean existing technology isn't capable of being secure.

we agree 100%. technology is capable of being secure, it just isn't secure yet. think of the stakes here. if a 16 year old hacker working out of his mother's basement in belarus could change the outcome of the US presidential election, we'd all be farked.

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

#70

Post by cloudjacker »

debracleaver wrote: post #2

Hey everyone. Debra Cleaver here, founder of Vote.org. I am ready to answer all of your questions about voting in the US, as long as they are non-partisan. Partisan questions should be directed to your local political party. I'm especially keen to talk about ways we can use technology to modernize the election process. My current focus is how we can use electronic signatures to roll out online voter registration in s…

As someone that is pretty content lobbying or going directly to a regulator to change a law, than through Congress or a local representative

Why do you think voter turnout is even worth spending energy on. Lobbying is way more likely to get your way and only marginally less passive. When Google got the FAA to change a regulation regarding blimps and skydiving, they didn't wait for the next Senate vote to put in their politicians, to nominate a more amenable chairman. They simply said "lets do it this way" to the FAA.

Its cute that people fought for the popular vote. But just cute.

Post reply on HN