31 ms·

Remind HN: Vote

454 points by DanielBMarkham 16y ago

For those of us living in the states who need to vote, I know it can be easy to get your head in the code and forget a lot of things, but today is election day. You're not asked to do a lot of things, but voting is one of them. Please try to find some time to get out and cast your ballot, no matter what your party or preferences. Remember that you don't vote to make a difference, you vote because it's your obligation to do so.

illuminatus31 16y ago
Yes on 19 in Cali!!
- Semiapies 16y ago
  This, I would vote for. I'm not in CA, though.
Mithrandir 16y ago
> ...no matter what your party or preferences. I think this should be something all people hold true, no matter how corrupt our politicians have or will become.
frobozz 16y ago
If you vote for a losing candidate, then you can complain that your voice has not been heard. If you vote for a winning candidate, then you can complain when they break their promises. If you don't vote, you have nothing to complain about but your own laziness.
- axod 16y ago
  What if you disagree with the system of giving everyone a vote being a valid way to decide things?
  - xentronium 16y ago
    Go and build your own country. With blackjack! And hookers!
    - thestoicattack 16y ago
      In fact, forget the country!
    - devmonk 16y ago
      Sounds like Nevada.
  - epo 16y ago
    Because, like it or not, that is the system and you can only change the system from within. "I disagree with the system" is intellectually lazy and in my experience merely a cover story for apathy.
    - mkr-hn 16y ago
      How will voting change the system if the system doesn't produce a candidate who can or will change it?
      - epo 16y ago
        Lack of imagination is another symptom of apathy. Doing nothing will not change the system, but it will perpetuate it.
        mkr-hn 16y ago
        How will voting change the system if no candidate is willing to change it? And just to be clear, I didn't say I'm not voting or that I think the system is broken. I'm asking you to explain your position.
        epo 16y ago
        Change requires willingness to change, and action. If no candidate is willing or able to change the system then you are indeed stuck with it. Another view is that perhaps no one wants to change the system because it is, all things considered, better than the alternatives.
        jasonlotito 16y ago
        > How will voting change the system if no candidate is willing to change it? You make the assumption enough people want to change it. They don't. At least, not yet. Candidates aren't some otherworldly beast, they are citizens. If people really wanted to enact change, they could. You can't make a change alone. If enough people want to make the change, they can vote to make it happen. It's a really simple concept.
  - mbreese 16y ago
    What's the alternative? I can't think of one that is morally acceptable.
    - axod 16y ago
      Personally I would prefer a monarchy, or some merit based voting system - eg You get a vote if you can demonstrate you have the understanding to make informed decisions.
      - ugh 16y ago
        Monarchy?! Sure, you might be lucky and get a good monarch – but their son could be a total douchebag (like Wilhelm II, the gaffe-emperor who led Germany into World War I). I think that on the whole, elections are less random and more merit based than monarchies.
        michaelkeenan 16y ago
        But when monarchies work, they work so well! The richest (per capita) country in the world, Liechtenstein, is a monarchy. I think Qatar, also a monarchy, is second-richest, though that doesn't really count because it has so much oil.
        axod 16y ago
        The difference isn't that great really though. If you look at the dynasties that win elections in the US - Bush, Kennedy, etc They may as well be a monarchy. Democracy typically only gives you 2 choices, and if they are both from dynastial families, it's pretty much a monarchy with the illusion of democracy anyway. > "Monarchy?! Sure, you might be lucky and get a good monarch – but their son could be a total douchebag (like Wilhelm II, the gaffe-emperor who led Germany into World War I)." Sounds like Bush Sr and Bush Jr to me,
        ugh 16y ago
        You know what we should do? Determine officials by lot! That’s an age-old democratic instrument first (and only, I guess) employed by the ancient Athenians [+]. Now that I think of it, randomness actually lives on with the jury duty. [+] As always with ancient democratic Athens several caveats apply, e.g. you had to be rather rich to be eligible for that.
- koningrobot 16y ago
  This is wrong. One shouldn't have to vote to be left alone. Reality is different, I know, but it isn't one's laziness that is to blame. (PS: I vote.)
  - dhimes 16y ago
    I agree (more or less) with the parent: If you don't vote, you lose the privilege of complaining. But just because your candidate loses doesn't mean that your voice hasn't been heard. It's just that more people who voted disagree with you than agree with you.
- mkr-hn 16y ago
  If you don't vote and have a good reason for it, you have every right to complain.
  - frobozz 16y ago
    True - I didn't vote in one election because I was unavoidably away from home, and the postal voting form didn't arrive until after I'd left. It didn't stop me complaining.
  - tjr 16y ago
    I would dare say that most people in the US who don't vote do not have good reasons for not doing so.
    - mkr-hn 16y ago
      But then to say people who don't vote don't get to complain, someone has to decide what constitutes a good reason.
    - Semiapies 16y ago
      I'd say the same for those who vote.
- Semiapies 16y ago
  I thought voting was "to make my voice heard" in the first place. Alternative: If you don't vote, you fail to validate the enthusiasm of people who support one mostly-interchangeable political team or the other largely out of simple social identification.
mahmud 16y ago
I love being from a "contended" state. My proud state of Virginia, home sweet home!
- Semiapies 16y ago
  What's so great about that, anyway?
tomjen3 16y ago
> Remember that you don't vote to make a difference, you vote because it's your obligation to do so. Really? Its my obligation to help the rest of the people pretend we live in a democracy?
- RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
  If more people voted, if fewer people like you held an attitude like that, then you wouldn't have to pretend.
  - mkr-hn 16y ago
    If 100% of eligible people voted, it still wouldn't be a pure democracy. It's not how the system is designed. Our system is built on the assumption that most people don't have the time or capacity to understand all the issues, so we elect people to do the understanding for us.
    - RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
      I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. It seems like you're saying that to be a democracy it must be that everyone has a say/vote in every decision made about every issue. Is that right?
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
      - mkr-hn 16y ago
        I'm saying that more people voting won't change the choice of representatives. If people are voting for the same ineffectual or destructive candidates, it makes no difference whether turnout is 300 million or 100 million. The solution isn't to get more people voting. It's to run better candidates.
      - thecoffman 16y ago
        Technically that is correct. According to my fourth grade social studies teacher a true or "direct" democracy is one in which each eligible voter votes on each issue. What we have is a representative democracy or a Republic where we vote on representatives that we assume will then vote on the issues in our best interests.
michaelkeenan 16y ago
If you have an obligation to vote, then it's an obligation to make an informed vote. If you haven't attempted to evaluate your decision carefully and can't make an informed vote, please don't vote. Informed voting > not voting > uninformed voting Greg Mankiw has a column on this: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/11/election-day-approaches.html http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/11/election-day-approach...
- _delirium 16y ago
  In competitive races I agree, but there are odd cases where voting uninformedly might be better than not voting, though you can always leave particular parts of the ballot blank. If your vote doesn't actually sway the race, then in effect you're only voting for your demographic to be taken more seriously in the next election's "likely voter" screen that pollsters use, which is probably in your interests to do (this is one reason the elderly get disproportionate weight in politics, because they vote at high rates).
- mbreese 16y ago
  This column was originally written in Oct 2000. I wonder if he still holds the same opinion. I think that the problem with assuming that the uninformed shouldn't vote is that you assume that all of the uninformed don't vote, or that the distribution is uniform. This is far from the case. It might be the case that we should encourage everyone to vote, so that all of the uninformed votes might cancel each other out.
  - michaelkeenan 16y ago
    Bryan Caplan argues that in his field (economics), uninformed votes don't cancel each other out. The average opinions of the uninformed (non-economist laymen) differ consistently from the average opinions of the informed (professional economists): http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/11/06/bryan-caplan/the-myth-of-the-rational-voter/ http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/11/06/bryan-caplan/the-myth... I wouldn't be surprised if the same were true of other skills useful to high-quality voting, such as military strategy, education, criminology and history.
cletus 16y ago
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 entirely on how badly voluntary voting in the US works. When voting is voluntary there is an incentive with certain groups to dissuade, discourage or simply make it difficult for others to vote. In US elections there have been cases of bribing homeless people to vote with cigarettes or alcohol. Getting into vote can be difficult with long lines. In Australia pretty much all these problems go away because you have to vote and the AEC (Australian Elecotral Commission) has to provide enough capacity to do so so, unless you go in the first hour or two of the morning, you can typically be in and out in 5-10 minutes tops. Politicians love an apathetic population. So by all means go out and vote.
- RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
  And for those who complain about not having the right to abstain, you can get the same effect by turning up and spoiling your ballot paper. You can even make a show of doing it so that everyone can see you're deliberately not casting a valid vote. That makes more of a point that staying home and being invisible.
  - andrew1 16y ago
    It might be a similar effect but it's not the same effect. There's a definite difference between wanting to say that you are making the effort to take part in the electoral process but that you don't want to lend your support to any of the candidates; and for whatever reason not correctly filling out the ballot paper. If nothing else it makes for a much more interesting statistic, spoiled ballot papers tell you nothing about the intent of the voter, a 'none of the above' option would help with that.
  - joelhaasnoot 16y ago
    This is actually legal in the Netherlands: just turn in a blank ballot.
DeusExMachina 16y ago
I don't know how laws and culture are in the USA, but in my country (Italy) vote is not an obligation. Vote is a right, and a hard earned one. It is also considered a civil duty. But never an obligation. The choice not to vote is also an expression of one's idea: that he does not believe in any of the politicians, or in the system as a whole. Lack of votes is also a measure on how much people believe in politicians. Italy has never been so corrupted in the past (transversally, in every party) as it is now, and this is reflected in the fact that the percentage of people who did not vote at the last elections was the highest one.
- blue1 16y ago
  "Never an obligation" is imprecise. Voting in Italy was obligatory until 1993. Also see article 48 of the italian constitution, where the exercise of the vote is defined "a civic duty".
- tallanvor 16y ago
  I hadn't thought of it that way, but you're right. If you make a conscious decision not to vote, that is a valid way of expressing your opinion. But I doubt many non-voters are making that choice. Apathy or the belief that their vote won't make a difference are the biggest reasons people don't vote (at least based on the people I know who don't vote), and that is a problem. I would rather people care enough to vote, no matter who they vote for - even if it means more crazy people in politics.
- jdub 16y ago
  No, choosing to not vote is choosing to not express your idea. (If you don't believe in the system at all, do not make use of it at all -- and we don't see many people actually doing that.)
  - thenduks 16y ago
    You're right. Personally in the case where I don't want to vote for anyone (most of the time) I go down to the booth and 'ruin' my ballot. The number of ruined ballots is sometimes counted and sometimes not, but at least the effort is made and it's harder for someone to argue that you're just too lazy to vote.
jdietrich 16y ago
If you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the next set of assholes. Here in the UK, the British National Party (a far-right fringe party) got two seats in the last European Parliament elections simply because turnout had fallen so low for the main parties. A lot of people are rightly ashamed at not bothering to vote. The only people who benefit from apathy are extremists and demagogues who can reliably rally support. A moderate political environment depends upon people motivating themselves to vote for boring candidates.
- paradoja 16y ago
  No action removes your right to complain. Many people may have their own legitimate reasons not to vote. That said, those who don't must understand the implications of their actions (like the example you give).
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    And many more people are just ambivalent; and it is those that really lose any right for people to listen to their complaints (which I think is a reasonable difference).
  - rsbrown 16y ago
    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 and watching MTV on primary day. By all means stay home if you want, but don't bullshit yourself that you're not voting. In reality, there is no such thing as not voting: you either vote by voting, or you vote by staying home and tacitly doubling the value of some Diehard's vote."
    - shasta 16y ago
      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, then please do so. If you believe doing so has a reasonable chance of making the world a better place, then maybe you even have a moral obligation to do so. But just voting out of some misplaced sense of civic duty is stupid.
rrc 16y ago
In a perfect system, I would like to see voting require a license. People require a driver's license because uneducated drivers can harm others. Uneducated voters can cause similar harm to others. Taken to the extreme, you could have a direct democracy where individuals vote directly for proposed bills, bypassing the (usually vested) middleman. Voters would have to pass some competency exam on the subject of the bill before being allowed to cast a vote. In other words, you can't vote on internet regulation if you don't know how to access a web page. The reason there will never be a license to vote is because you transfer an immense about of power to those who create the exams. Influence the exams and you decide the election. In addition, by putting up barriers towards voting, you decrease overall participation in the election, possibly alienating the general population. Perhaps a better, more realistic option is to move towards direct democracy while simultaneously improving as much as possible education.
- riffic 16y ago
  we had this system in the past; it was incredibly racist. read some history, chap.
  - devmonk 16y ago
    But, rrc has a point about voters requiring something to identify them, even if the reason for the license was problematic. The current system allows fraud which could affect close elections. I don't like the idea of a national ID, nor mark on the head or hand, but maybe just a picture of a registered voter and a date of the picture taken.
    - riffic 16y ago
      I reread rrc's comment, which seems could be interpreted as both ways; either to advocate requirement of positive identification to vote, or to require voters to take an exam to be licensed as a voter, which is what I believe what was meant. regardless, literacy tests were done before, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws for a background of our (shameful) past.
kelnos 16y ago
Remember that you don't vote to make a difference, you vote because it's your obligation to do so. That's crap. Why should I feel obligated to do something that has no affect on anything? (I'm not saying that's definitively the case, but your statement implies that you should vote even if your vote doesn't matter. Why?)
- mynameishere 16y ago
  I'm not saying that's definitively the case It is definitely the case. In the rare instance when the vote is decided by one, rest assured a judge, and not the one, will settle the actual result. Voting is an absolutely pointless pyschological approval of two candidates, neither of whom was chosen democratically. If anyone is actually interested in influencing policy, which is the whole point, get out your checkbook. Or, if you have a lot of time, get involved in the machinery of politics.
  - jsz0 16y ago
    Local elections are very democratic. It's winner take all. None of this electoral college non-sense. The best opportunity an individual has to influence elections is to vote in the primaries but few people bother to show up. You'll have the choice of a dozen candidates or more -- most of whom have a very legitimate shot at getting the nomination. It's common for primaries to be decided by only a couple hundred votes because so few people show up to vote. For the general election you have less choices but, at the local level, it's still winner takes all democracy. There are always third parties and/or write-ins if you don't want to vote for the two major parties. In many places we have referendums or propositions on the ballot which offer the most direct form of democracy The argument people make about their votes 'not counting' is like an individual choosing not to join the basketball team because they might not hit the winning shot. Every point counts. I don't understand the extreme egotism that people would opt not to participate unless they get to cast the deciding vote. Talk about un-democratic? Some people want their votes to be more than equal apparently. It goes back to people complaining about the two party system and doing absolutely nothing to help third parties.
    - 16y ago
duncanj 16y ago
In this case, I have no dogs in the race. I'm registered in a different county from where I now live and it is too late to register in this one. I am not interested in any of the local issues in the other county and I am uninterested in any of the statewide candidates. For me, in this circumstance, a vote would be like a ritual selection of the best sounding name or the most obscure ballot or something. That is not the sort of voting that is good for anyone. When I used to work on campaigns for a third party, the most annoying thing was the fact that there is a lot of inertia from people who have no idea who any of the candidates are ritually voting a party line. In NY, where I lived, there was even a special lever that marked the whole party row, to enable reduced thinking. Another comment here says that politicians love an apathetic population. More correctly, they like apathetic populations that vote consistently.
adolfoabegg 16y ago
it's an obligation and it's a right, isn't it? "Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote." - George Nathan
- philwelch 16y ago
  Far, far more bad officials were elected by good citizens who did vote.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - Semiapies 16y ago
    I'm pretty sure all of them were, in fact...
    - philwelch 16y ago
      I'm sure a lot of bad politicians were elected by stupid or evil voters (i.e. bad citizens).
      - Semiapies 16y ago
        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".
        philwelch 16y ago
        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).
- afterburner 16y ago
joelmichael 16y ago
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: it uses force to make people do what they don't want to do, which reeks of tyranny. And arguably, society would be better off if only the intelligent and informed voted, so encouraging voting amongst the masses is downright malicious. If you're being practical and are just trying to get a certain politician elected or ballot measure passed, then requesting that people vote within a demographic that is likely to vote in a predictable way (Democratic on HN, I'm sure) is duplicitous. You pretend you don't care what party people vote for, but anyone can tell that a "Rock the Vote" campaign on MTV is intended to get youth Democrat votes, or that bussing in impoverished people is intended to get Democrat votes. Never is the idea why people should vote actually explained, but that doesn't stop them from shaming those who don't. Republicans tend to be a little more frank as to who you should vote for and why. Which is why I say, vote Meg Whitman, because the State of California is broke and she is more likely to contain the spending. Vote to legalize marijuana because it's high time people stopped being sent to jail for smoking pot. And if you're thinking of voting otherwise, I encourage you to stay home. Because a vote is not a moral obligation. It's a serious political act that changes the structure of society, and I would rather my preferred changes happen than that they be as democratic as possible.
- Nick_C 16y ago
  > Mandatory voting is disagreeable for the same reason mandatory anything is: it uses force to make people do what they don't want to do, which reeks of tyranny. I very much disagree with this statement, which smacks of hyperbole. A citizen has certain responsibilities. It is not tyranny to expect that citizen to perform their responsibility. One of the responsibilities is jury duty and, I would argue, voting is another.
  - michaelkeenan 16y ago
    > I would argue, voting is another [responsibility]. What is your argument?
jswinghammer 16y ago
I won't be voting. I am a libertarian so my vote doesn't matter anyway. Plus I feel that not voting sends a stronger signal about how I feel about our system of government. If more people don't vote it will be harder for them to pretend they have a mandate to raise taxes, give money to the banks, and start wars. The government is long beyond saving. If you vote you take some responsibility for the next war, the next bombing, the next threat to Iran, etc. I want no part in putting more blood on my hands. I realize most of you think it matters but think about this: when does your one vote ever matter? Has your vote ever decided anything? Have you ever been proud of all the actions of who you voted for? Instead of voting you are better off creating value in society by doing what many of you do already: create something that improves someone's life.
- cabalamat 16y ago
  > If more people don't vote it will be harder for them to pretend they have a mandate to raise taxes, give money to the banks, and start wars. No it won't, they'll just say people who didn't vote were apathetic.
  - jswinghammer 16y ago
    I'm hoping that if enough people refuse to pay attention they'll just go away on their own.
    - jrockway 16y ago
      You may want to rethink this strategy, because this is not what's going to happen.
      - jswinghammer 16y ago
        Can you really say that voting has made things better?
        afterburner 16y ago
jasonkester 16y ago
Is there anything particularly worth voting for in this election? I tend to not bother voting for issues that don't concern me. And frankly, the vast majority of issues that people get all excited about don't bother me one way or another. I'm happy to pay a little more or a little less tax on various things, see schools built in one area and prisons not built in another. Go nuts with it all, and if it really effects your happiness I'm fine with letting you make little changes to the world around me. Until you come up with something I find important, I'd prefer not to concern myself with it.
- daskrachen 16y ago
  So you claim that there is nothing of interest in the topics that are voted on. How do you know that if you don't concern yourself with them? You can either be ignorant or informed. Not both at the same time. Claiming that everything is boring by way of being ignorant of everything is dishonest. I am not saying that current affairs are interesting, but I would prefer people to be honestly ignorant to simply being arrogant.
  - jasonkester 16y ago
    How about this: Of the topics being voted on that people have gone out of their way to promote, or that the media have covered, none of them struck my curiosity to the point where I feel compelled to dig further into them. I asked here, on the off chance that somebody has one that they think the HN audience might care about.
    - afterburner 16y ago
      Congress votes on the budget, and all new laws or modifications to existing laws. You don't care if any of that gets effed up in ways you don't agree with?
      - Semiapies 16y ago
        Plenty. The delusion that anyone is actually voting between "person who won't eff things up" and "person who will eff things up" is not useful, though.
JohnDeHope 16y ago
Don't vote, it only encourages them.
- jamesteow 16y ago
  Doesn't sound smart to me.
  - Semiapies 16y ago
    Let's get meta and go by the votes...
pbw 16y ago
Of 16,000 congressional elections over the last 100 years only one was decided by a single vote. So in some sense your vote doesn't matter, in that if you didn't vote the result would likely be the same. But one way every vote contributes is increasing voter turnout. Although your contribution is small, it always counts, no matter who you vote for. Mid-term elections have been averaging 37% voter turnout. As turnout gets smaller election results can drift arbitrarily far away from what the whole population wants, because only a subset is deciding. Corruption and manipulation become easier. High voter turnout is really really important to making the the election a legitimate process. I wrote about this recently: http://www.kmeme.com/2010/10/why-you-should-vote.html http://www.kmeme.com/2010/10/why-you-should-vote.html A thread with other suggestions why voting might be rational: http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/2z6/why_should_you_vote/ http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/2z6/why_should_you_vote...
- mindslight 16y ago
  > High voter turnout is really really important to making the the election a legitimate process. This is exactly why I am not voting; I'd rather not contribute to the illusion of legitimacy.
tibbon 16y ago
To say that most elections aren't decided by a single vote, and thus your vote doesn't matter; is like saying that no one goes bankrupt over a single dollar, so single dollars don't matter. If you agree that single dollars don't matter, send your extra ones to me please....
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  Anyone who could possibly trot out the "a single vote doesn't matter, so whatevs" argument is either ignorant or hasn't been paying attention to the numerous high-profile extremely close elections in the last several years (2000 presidential election, 2008 Minnesota Senate race).
  - Semiapies 16y ago
    In reality, those are considered remarkable because elections that are so close are extremely rare.
    - InclinedPlane 16y ago
      Many local elections can be very close. Regardless, if you don't want to vote, that's fine. That just gives my vote more weight.
      - Semiapies 16y ago
        So, the national elections you cited were not honest examples, gotcha. But yes, that it does give you "more weight". You can vote for Team Red or Team Blue and convince yourself either that the centrists who get elected are awesome and terribly supportive of the things you want - or that the remarkably similar centrists who got elected are crazy extremists who will destroy America.
ulvund 16y ago
Here in Denmark the participation of the electorate in general elections normally lies above 85%. You receive your voting voucher thing by mail 2-3 weeks before the election.
wakeup 16y ago
Don't vote! You are just sanctioning the killing of a lot of people.
eduardo_f 16y ago
Related thread: Ask HN: Election Day tomorrow, what do geeks think of the Tea Party? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1856675 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1856675
tmcneal 16y ago
For those of you looking to do some last minute research before voting today, my web app provides candidate information along with information on the positions each candidate supports or opposes: http://elect.io http://elect.io
- jamesteow 16y ago
  Cool and easy to use. We actually worked on something similar where we ask your position on causes and show the grades according to policies: http://www.votereports.org http://www.votereports.org
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - tmcneal 16y ago
    I saw your site mentioned on HN a few weeks ago and checked it out then.. I think it's great.. the design and user experience is especially well done!
- Semiapies 16y ago
  Very nice! Sadly, it just reminded me who my options were...
ihumanable 16y ago
Starship Troopers: "No. Something given has no basis in value. When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force my friends is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived." Voting is so badass.
- Semiapies 16y ago
  What struck me as funny in that line is that it's essentially a re-purposed bit of anarchist rhetoric...
nicksergeant 16y ago
Uneducated voters who vote just because people tell them to piss me off more than people who just plain don't vote. Politicians in our country are worse than salesmen. That's why we have such little voter turnout, not because people don't feel obligated.
CWuestefeld 16y ago
Please, do vote if you understand the issues, and where the candidates stand. But otherwise, please DO NOT VOTE. Just because an idea makes you feel warm and fuzzy doesn't make it right. There are plenty of things in this world that are counter-intuitive, and if you're relying only on your beliefs, there's a good chance you'll get it wrong. If you've never taken a class or read a book on economics, please don't vote. (I recommend Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlett [1]) If you've never taken a class or read a book on political philosophy, please don't vote. If you don't know the difference between natural law and utilitarianism, please don't vote. (I recommend reading J S Mill [2], or Locke [3], or Mises [4], or Hayek [5]) And if you don't believe me, then you should also read The Myth of the Rational Voter, by Bryan Caplan [6]. He discusses not only why voters do vote irrationally, but also why it's rational for them to do so. [1] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Economics_in_One_Lesson https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Economics_in_... [2] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/John_Stuart_M... [3] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/John_locke https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/John_locke [4] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mi... [5] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Friedrich_Hay... [6] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter%3A_Why_Democracies_Choose_Bad_Policies https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Myth_of_t...
- kgosser 16y ago
  Seth Godin disagrees with you: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/11/voting-misunderstood.html http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/11/voting-misun... Additionally, "if you understand the issues" is a vague, relative parameter. I know in the state of wisconsin I don't know 100% of the issues (and probably not even 50%, sadly. Been a busy year), but I know enough of what I like and dislike about the Governor and Senate battles to vote with confidence. I think your argument is a mute point. It's either damned if we do, damned if we don't.
  - jbooth 16y ago
vaksel 16y ago
personally I don't vote for 3 reasons: 1. my vote doesn't matter. I live in a 100% blue state, it'll go Democrat no matter what. So whether I decide to vote democrat or republican or green, my vote really won't matter. + the redestricting is always aimed at propping up small states. Why does California and Delaware both get 2 senators? 2. the system is broken, there are no good politicians. There is no incentive for them to tell the truth or stick to campaign promises, so they don't. 3. it's too much of a hassle. If we can have a day off for Columbus day, I don't see why we can't have a day off for something as important as voting. And why does it have to be a day? Make it a 3 day weekend, so everyone gets a chance to vote. And voting should be easier, I don't see why I can't vote online...sure there might be some fraud, but surely it's possible to limit that, using a centralized voting website.
- Retric 16y ago
  Who you vote for is less important than the fact you vote. EX: Medicare is a direct result of a high percentage of older people voting. Even if you think Medicare is a bad idea, it’s really hard to get elected if you piss off the elderly.
  - vaksel 16y ago
    voting is pointless until we get run off elections. 3rd parties that would have long ago become prominent in U.S. with runoff elections are still stuck with less than 1% of vote, because the public isn't voting for their best interests, but are instead forced to vote to stop the other guy from getting power. the democrats of today, are the republicans of just 10 years ago...and they get called socialists by the current crop of GOP. Why the shift to the right? Because they know they'll always have the Democrat vote, so they ignore them and shift to the right in order to get a few more independents.
    - Retric 16y ago
      In our system voting is less about picking the winner than scaring the winner into considering your opinion. Democrats in Red states are aften more conservative than Republicans in Red states.
tjr 16y ago
I once heard a story. It may be a cliche, it may be an old, tired, worn-out tale, but it marked my thinking. A village was planning a feast. All of the residents were asked to bring a bottle of wine, each of which would be mixed together in a large vat for everyone to partake of. One of the residents reasoned that a single bottle wouldn't make a difference, and so brought a bottle of water instead. When it came time to distribute from the vat of wine at the feast, it turned out the vat was entirely full of water, as all of the residents had come to the same conclusion. For nearly every practical purpose in our United States general elections, a single vote does indeed not make a difference. But a thousand votes might make a difference, and if those thousand people were all persuaded that their single vote wouldn't make a difference, and then didn't vote, then the difference would not be made.
- Semiapies 16y ago
  Find an election for a significant, contested office that gets no votes, and we can worry about this parable.
  - tjr 16y ago
    It doesn't have to be an election with no votes. Just an election whose outcome could be changed by the votes of people who believe their votes don't matter. An election with 5500 votes for A and 5000 for B could be turned with 1000 more votes for B.
    - Semiapies 16y ago
      waves goodbye to the goalposts as they fly off Why would those 1000 votes all be for B? They could be for A. They could be evenly split between them. Most likely, they'd be proportionally split similarly to the original vote. You're looking at partisans' rhetoric used to motivate their supporters and mistaking it for logic.
      - tjr 16y ago
        If they are all for A, or split evenly between them, or proportionally split similar to the original vote, then these additional votes would change nothing. If they all (or enough of them) are for B, then they could change the outcome. Knowing nothing else, there's really no way to say for sure what would happen, but if they don't vote, then they certainly will not change the outcome.
pasbesoin 16y ago
I decided not to post this to HN as a topic, even though it is non-partisan and I support the message. But since there is already this "vote" thread, I offer your this perspective and perhaps motivation: [2008] Craig Ferguson: If you don't vote, you're a moron http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdRVQ4xwwmQ#t=06m25s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdRVQ4xwwmQ#t=06m25s The above link "cuts to the chase"; however, the entire monologue is worth watching (more commentary on the campaigning, including its hypocrisy).
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
umjames 16y ago
If the US truly believes that voting is important, why don't they make election day a national holiday so the voters don't have to worry about possibly conflicting work schedules keeping them from the polls? It's only 1 day, and it happens once every 2 years. Employers can't spare that?
pilom 16y ago
Google has a really good tool out right now to find your polling place: http://maps.google.com/vote http://maps.google.com/vote
araneae 16y ago
I'm not going to vote. It's not rational. It's a lot of effort and my vote is proportionately very small and therefore can have no effect. EDIT: Whoever downvoted this, YOU are the reason that HN is going to pot. You may not like that I am not voting, but instead why don't you instead respond telling me why I'm wrong?
- dageroth 16y ago
  Rational Choice Theory says you are right, but it can't explain why people vote nonetheless, even though the perceived cost is so high for the small actual gain. Some people seem to get value out of voting itself, regardless of the outcome, which is bad news for a rational choice theory only looking at the value of the outcomes and not the inherent value of the choice itself.
bradly 16y ago
I just don't think telling everyone to vote does any service to our/a country. Tell people to learn about the issues. Tell people to research the candidates. Then they will vote, and it won't be for the person on the sign they saw while driving to the polling place.
T_S_ 16y ago
I moved back to my native USA from Australia about a year ago, after living there for 6 years. I also spent two years in the UK in the 90s. Some contrasts were interesting. Majority rules in Australia and the UK. In the parlimentary system, the potential for gridlock is far less (Yes, the Aussie Senate does slow some things down.) However, the major candidates do have to say some specific things in order to get elected--because they then go and pass them into law. Look at what the UK is doing to their budget. Couldn't happen here. In the US, gridlock is so endemic elections are much more about personality and/or voter disgust. Mandatory voting in Australia. A good thing I think. A lot of American politics seems to be about convincing you to stay home because your candidate is a louse. In the USA, you could have Ghandi running against Mandela and there would still be mudslinging and scandal mongering.
Semiapies 16y ago
No. There are no close races where I care about the outcome in my district. There are no initiatives I care to support or oppose. I have fairly equal and tremendous disgust for both of the majority parties. On the issues I care about, I've bashed my head against reality enough to learn that the parties are indistinguishable in practice. I'm not going to trot down to the polls to give anyone a little thrill of excitement that they've gotten another vote for their preferred team. Nor am I going to throw one of a handful of symbolic votes for a minority-party candidate for any office. The mainstream takes no notice of or interest in "third party" results, and any other interpretation of the supposed value of a symbolic vote is essentially an argument for magic. I am not superstitious. As for mandatory voting: Fuck you. I am not your mule; carry your own damn partisan water.
spinlock 16y ago
[insert witty comment about down-voting at the polls here.]
btilly 16y ago
Here in California you get a free Starbucks coffee for voting.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
whackedspinach 16y ago
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.

Remind HN: Vote

454 points by DanielBMarkham 16y ago

illuminatus31 16y ago

Yes on 19 in Cali!!

Semiapies 16y ago
This, I would vote for. I'm not in CA, though.

Mithrandir 16y ago

> ...no matter what your party or preferences. I think this should be something all people hold true, no matter how corrupt our politicians have or will become.

frobozz 16y ago

If you vote for a losing candidate, then you can complain that your voice has not been heard. If you vote for a winning candidate, then you can complain when they break their promises. If you don't vote, you have nothing to complain about but your own laziness.

axod 16y ago
What if you disagree with the system of giving everyone a vote being a valid way to decide things?
- xentronium 16y ago
  Go and build your own country. With blackjack! And hookers!
  - thestoicattack 16y ago
    In fact, forget the country!
  - devmonk 16y ago
    Sounds like Nevada.
- epo 16y ago
  Because, like it or not, that is the system and you can only change the system from within. "I disagree with the system" is intellectually lazy and in my experience merely a cover story for apathy.
  - mkr-hn 16y ago
    How will voting change the system if the system doesn't produce a candidate who can or will change it?
    - epo 16y ago
      Lack of imagination is another symptom of apathy. Doing nothing will not change the system, but it will perpetuate it.
      - mkr-hn 16y ago
        How will voting change the system if no candidate is willing to change it? And just to be clear, I didn't say I'm not voting or that I think the system is broken. I'm asking you to explain your position.
        epo 16y ago
        Change requires willingness to change, and action. If no candidate is willing or able to change the system then you are indeed stuck with it. Another view is that perhaps no one wants to change the system because it is, all things considered, better than the alternatives.
        jasonlotito 16y ago
        > How will voting change the system if no candidate is willing to change it? You make the assumption enough people want to change it. They don't. At least, not yet. Candidates aren't some otherworldly beast, they are citizens. If people really wanted to enact change, they could. You can't make a change alone. If enough people want to make the change, they can vote to make it happen. It's a really simple concept.
- mbreese 16y ago
  What's the alternative? I can't think of one that is morally acceptable.
  - axod 16y ago
    Personally I would prefer a monarchy, or some merit based voting system - eg You get a vote if you can demonstrate you have the understanding to make informed decisions.
    - ugh 16y ago
      Monarchy?! Sure, you might be lucky and get a good monarch – but their son could be a total douchebag (like Wilhelm II, the gaffe-emperor who led Germany into World War I). I think that on the whole, elections are less random and more merit based than monarchies.
      - michaelkeenan 16y ago
        But when monarchies work, they work so well! The richest (per capita) country in the world, Liechtenstein, is a monarchy. I think Qatar, also a monarchy, is second-richest, though that doesn't really count because it has so much oil.
      - axod 16y ago
        The difference isn't that great really though. If you look at the dynasties that win elections in the US - Bush, Kennedy, etc They may as well be a monarchy. Democracy typically only gives you 2 choices, and if they are both from dynastial families, it's pretty much a monarchy with the illusion of democracy anyway. > "Monarchy?! Sure, you might be lucky and get a good monarch – but their son could be a total douchebag (like Wilhelm II, the gaffe-emperor who led Germany into World War I)." Sounds like Bush Sr and Bush Jr to me,
        ugh 16y ago
        You know what we should do? Determine officials by lot! That’s an age-old democratic instrument first (and only, I guess) employed by the ancient Athenians [+]. Now that I think of it, randomness actually lives on with the jury duty. [+] As always with ancient democratic Athens several caveats apply, e.g. you had to be rather rich to be eligible for that.
koningrobot 16y ago
This is wrong. One shouldn't have to vote to be left alone. Reality is different, I know, but it isn't one's laziness that is to blame. (PS: I vote.)
- dhimes 16y ago
  I agree (more or less) with the parent: If you don't vote, you lose the privilege of complaining. But just because your candidate loses doesn't mean that your voice hasn't been heard. It's just that more people who voted disagree with you than agree with you.
mkr-hn 16y ago
If you don't vote and have a good reason for it, you have every right to complain.
- frobozz 16y ago
  True - I didn't vote in one election because I was unavoidably away from home, and the postal voting form didn't arrive until after I'd left. It didn't stop me complaining.
- tjr 16y ago
  I would dare say that most people in the US who don't vote do not have good reasons for not doing so.
  - mkr-hn 16y ago
    But then to say people who don't vote don't get to complain, someone has to decide what constitutes a good reason.
  - Semiapies 16y ago
    I'd say the same for those who vote.
Semiapies 16y ago
I thought voting was "to make my voice heard" in the first place. Alternative: If you don't vote, you fail to validate the enthusiasm of people who support one mostly-interchangeable political team or the other largely out of simple social identification.

mahmud 16y ago

I love being from a "contended" state. My proud state of Virginia, home sweet home!

Semiapies 16y ago
What's so great about that, anyway?

tomjen3 16y ago

> Remember that you don't vote to make a difference, you vote because it's your obligation to do so. Really? Its my obligation to help the rest of the people pretend we live in a democracy?

RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
If more people voted, if fewer people like you held an attitude like that, then you wouldn't have to pretend.
- mkr-hn 16y ago
  If 100% of eligible people voted, it still wouldn't be a pure democracy. It's not how the system is designed. Our system is built on the assumption that most people don't have the time or capacity to understand all the issues, so we elect people to do the understanding for us.
  - RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
    I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. It seems like you're saying that to be a democracy it must be that everyone has a say/vote in every decision made about every issue. Is that right?
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - mkr-hn 16y ago
      I'm saying that more people voting won't change the choice of representatives. If people are voting for the same ineffectual or destructive candidates, it makes no difference whether turnout is 300 million or 100 million. The solution isn't to get more people voting. It's to run better candidates.
    - thecoffman 16y ago
      Technically that is correct. According to my fourth grade social studies teacher a true or "direct" democracy is one in which each eligible voter votes on each issue. What we have is a representative democracy or a Republic where we vote on representatives that we assume will then vote on the issues in our best interests.

michaelkeenan 16y ago

If you have an obligation to vote, then it's an obligation to make an informed vote. If you haven't attempted to evaluate your decision carefully and can't make an informed vote, please don't vote. Informed voting > not voting > uninformed voting Greg Mankiw has a column on this: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/11/election-day-approaches.html http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/11/election-day-approach...

_delirium 16y ago
In competitive races I agree, but there are odd cases where voting uninformedly might be better than not voting, though you can always leave particular parts of the ballot blank. If your vote doesn't actually sway the race, then in effect you're only voting for your demographic to be taken more seriously in the next election's "likely voter" screen that pollsters use, which is probably in your interests to do (this is one reason the elderly get disproportionate weight in politics, because they vote at high rates).
mbreese 16y ago
This column was originally written in Oct 2000. I wonder if he still holds the same opinion. I think that the problem with assuming that the uninformed shouldn't vote is that you assume that all of the uninformed don't vote, or that the distribution is uniform. This is far from the case. It might be the case that we should encourage everyone to vote, so that all of the uninformed votes might cancel each other out.
- michaelkeenan 16y ago
  Bryan Caplan argues that in his field (economics), uninformed votes don't cancel each other out. The average opinions of the uninformed (non-economist laymen) differ consistently from the average opinions of the informed (professional economists): http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/11/06/bryan-caplan/the-myth-of-the-rational-voter/ http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/11/06/bryan-caplan/the-myth... I wouldn't be surprised if the same were true of other skills useful to high-quality voting, such as military strategy, education, criminology and history.

cletus 16y ago

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 entirely on how badly voluntary voting in the US works. When voting is voluntary there is an incentive with certain groups to dissuade, discourage or simply make it difficult for others to vote. In US elections there have been cases of bribing homeless people to vote with cigarettes or alcohol. Getting into vote can be difficult with long lines. In Australia pretty much all these problems go away because you have to vote and the AEC (Australian Elecotral Commission) has to provide enough capacity to do so so, unless you go in the first hour or two of the morning, you can typically be in and out in 5-10 minutes tops. Politicians love an apathetic population. So by all means go out and vote.

RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
And for those who complain about not having the right to abstain, you can get the same effect by turning up and spoiling your ballot paper. You can even make a show of doing it so that everyone can see you're deliberately not casting a valid vote. That makes more of a point that staying home and being invisible.
- andrew1 16y ago
  It might be a similar effect but it's not the same effect. There's a definite difference between wanting to say that you are making the effort to take part in the electoral process but that you don't want to lend your support to any of the candidates; and for whatever reason not correctly filling out the ballot paper. If nothing else it makes for a much more interesting statistic, spoiled ballot papers tell you nothing about the intent of the voter, a 'none of the above' option would help with that.
- joelhaasnoot 16y ago
  This is actually legal in the Netherlands: just turn in a blank ballot.

DeusExMachina 16y ago

I don't know how laws and culture are in the USA, but in my country (Italy) vote is not an obligation. Vote is a right, and a hard earned one. It is also considered a civil duty. But never an obligation. The choice not to vote is also an expression of one's idea: that he does not believe in any of the politicians, or in the system as a whole. Lack of votes is also a measure on how much people believe in politicians. Italy has never been so corrupted in the past (transversally, in every party) as it is now, and this is reflected in the fact that the percentage of people who did not vote at the last elections was the highest one.

blue1 16y ago
"Never an obligation" is imprecise. Voting in Italy was obligatory until 1993. Also see article 48 of the italian constitution, where the exercise of the vote is defined "a civic duty".
tallanvor 16y ago
I hadn't thought of it that way, but you're right. If you make a conscious decision not to vote, that is a valid way of expressing your opinion. But I doubt many non-voters are making that choice. Apathy or the belief that their vote won't make a difference are the biggest reasons people don't vote (at least based on the people I know who don't vote), and that is a problem. I would rather people care enough to vote, no matter who they vote for - even if it means more crazy people in politics.
jdub 16y ago
No, choosing to not vote is choosing to not express your idea. (If you don't believe in the system at all, do not make use of it at all -- and we don't see many people actually doing that.)
- thenduks 16y ago
  You're right. Personally in the case where I don't want to vote for anyone (most of the time) I go down to the booth and 'ruin' my ballot. The number of ruined ballots is sometimes counted and sometimes not, but at least the effort is made and it's harder for someone to argue that you're just too lazy to vote.

jdietrich 16y ago

If you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the next set of assholes. Here in the UK, the British National Party (a far-right fringe party) got two seats in the last European Parliament elections simply because turnout had fallen so low for the main parties. A lot of people are rightly ashamed at not bothering to vote. The only people who benefit from apathy are extremists and demagogues who can reliably rally support. A moderate political environment depends upon people motivating themselves to vote for boring candidates.

paradoja 16y ago
No action removes your right to complain. Many people may have their own legitimate reasons not to vote. That said, those who don't must understand the implications of their actions (like the example you give).
- ErrantX 16y ago
  And many more people are just ambivalent; and it is those that really lose any right for people to listen to their complaints (which I think is a reasonable difference).
- rsbrown 16y ago
  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 and watching MTV on primary day. By all means stay home if you want, but don't bullshit yourself that you're not voting. In reality, there is no such thing as not voting: you either vote by voting, or you vote by staying home and tacitly doubling the value of some Diehard's vote."
  - shasta 16y ago
    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, then please do so. If you believe doing so has a reasonable chance of making the world a better place, then maybe you even have a moral obligation to do so. But just voting out of some misplaced sense of civic duty is stupid.

rrc 16y ago

In a perfect system, I would like to see voting require a license. People require a driver's license because uneducated drivers can harm others. Uneducated voters can cause similar harm to others. Taken to the extreme, you could have a direct democracy where individuals vote directly for proposed bills, bypassing the (usually vested) middleman. Voters would have to pass some competency exam on the subject of the bill before being allowed to cast a vote. In other words, you can't vote on internet regulation if you don't know how to access a web page. The reason there will never be a license to vote is because you transfer an immense about of power to those who create the exams. Influence the exams and you decide the election. In addition, by putting up barriers towards voting, you decrease overall participation in the election, possibly alienating the general population. Perhaps a better, more realistic option is to move towards direct democracy while simultaneously improving as much as possible education.

riffic 16y ago
we had this system in the past; it was incredibly racist. read some history, chap.
- devmonk 16y ago
  But, rrc has a point about voters requiring something to identify them, even if the reason for the license was problematic. The current system allows fraud which could affect close elections. I don't like the idea of a national ID, nor mark on the head or hand, but maybe just a picture of a registered voter and a date of the picture taken.
  - riffic 16y ago
    I reread rrc's comment, which seems could be interpreted as both ways; either to advocate requirement of positive identification to vote, or to require voters to take an exam to be licensed as a voter, which is what I believe what was meant. regardless, literacy tests were done before, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws for a background of our (shameful) past.

kelnos 16y ago

Remember that you don't vote to make a difference, you vote because it's your obligation to do so. That's crap. Why should I feel obligated to do something that has no affect on anything? (I'm not saying that's definitively the case, but your statement implies that you should vote even if your vote doesn't matter. Why?)

mynameishere 16y ago
I'm not saying that's definitively the case It is definitely the case. In the rare instance when the vote is decided by one, rest assured a judge, and not the one, will settle the actual result. Voting is an absolutely pointless pyschological approval of two candidates, neither of whom was chosen democratically. If anyone is actually interested in influencing policy, which is the whole point, get out your checkbook. Or, if you have a lot of time, get involved in the machinery of politics.
- jsz0 16y ago
  Local elections are very democratic. It's winner take all. None of this electoral college non-sense. The best opportunity an individual has to influence elections is to vote in the primaries but few people bother to show up. You'll have the choice of a dozen candidates or more -- most of whom have a very legitimate shot at getting the nomination. It's common for primaries to be decided by only a couple hundred votes because so few people show up to vote. For the general election you have less choices but, at the local level, it's still winner takes all democracy. There are always third parties and/or write-ins if you don't want to vote for the two major parties. In many places we have referendums or propositions on the ballot which offer the most direct form of democracy The argument people make about their votes 'not counting' is like an individual choosing not to join the basketball team because they might not hit the winning shot. Every point counts. I don't understand the extreme egotism that people would opt not to participate unless they get to cast the deciding vote. Talk about un-democratic? Some people want their votes to be more than equal apparently. It goes back to people complaining about the two party system and doing absolutely nothing to help third parties.
  - 16y ago

duncanj 16y ago

In this case, I have no dogs in the race. I'm registered in a different county from where I now live and it is too late to register in this one. I am not interested in any of the local issues in the other county and I am uninterested in any of the statewide candidates. For me, in this circumstance, a vote would be like a ritual selection of the best sounding name or the most obscure ballot or something. That is not the sort of voting that is good for anyone. When I used to work on campaigns for a third party, the most annoying thing was the fact that there is a lot of inertia from people who have no idea who any of the candidates are ritually voting a party line. In NY, where I lived, there was even a special lever that marked the whole party row, to enable reduced thinking. Another comment here says that politicians love an apathetic population. More correctly, they like apathetic populations that vote consistently.

adolfoabegg 16y ago

it's an obligation and it's a right, isn't it? "Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote." - George Nathan

philwelch 16y ago
Far, far more bad officials were elected by good citizens who did vote.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- Semiapies 16y ago
  I'm pretty sure all of them were, in fact...
  - philwelch 16y ago
    I'm sure a lot of bad politicians were elected by stupid or evil voters (i.e. bad citizens).
    - Semiapies 16y ago
      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".
      - philwelch 16y ago
        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).
afterburner 16y ago

joelmichael 16y ago

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: it uses force to make people do what they don't want to do, which reeks of tyranny. And arguably, society would be better off if only the intelligent and informed voted, so encouraging voting amongst the masses is downright malicious. If you're being practical and are just trying to get a certain politician elected or ballot measure passed, then requesting that people vote within a demographic that is likely to vote in a predictable way (Democratic on HN, I'm sure) is duplicitous. You pretend you don't care what party people vote for, but anyone can tell that a "Rock the Vote" campaign on MTV is intended to get youth Democrat votes, or that bussing in impoverished people is intended to get Democrat votes. Never is the idea why people should vote actually explained, but that doesn't stop them from shaming those who don't. Republicans tend to be a little more frank as to who you should vote for and why. Which is why I say, vote Meg Whitman, because the State of California is broke and she is more likely to contain the spending. Vote to legalize marijuana because it's high time people stopped being sent to jail for smoking pot. And if you're thinking of voting otherwise, I encourage you to stay home. Because a vote is not a moral obligation. It's a serious political act that changes the structure of society, and I would rather my preferred changes happen than that they be as democratic as possible.

Nick_C 16y ago
> Mandatory voting is disagreeable for the same reason mandatory anything is: it uses force to make people do what they don't want to do, which reeks of tyranny. I very much disagree with this statement, which smacks of hyperbole. A citizen has certain responsibilities. It is not tyranny to expect that citizen to perform their responsibility. One of the responsibilities is jury duty and, I would argue, voting is another.
- michaelkeenan 16y ago
  > I would argue, voting is another [responsibility]. What is your argument?

jswinghammer 16y ago

I won't be voting. I am a libertarian so my vote doesn't matter anyway. Plus I feel that not voting sends a stronger signal about how I feel about our system of government. If more people don't vote it will be harder for them to pretend they have a mandate to raise taxes, give money to the banks, and start wars. The government is long beyond saving. If you vote you take some responsibility for the next war, the next bombing, the next threat to Iran, etc. I want no part in putting more blood on my hands. I realize most of you think it matters but think about this: when does your one vote ever matter? Has your vote ever decided anything? Have you ever been proud of all the actions of who you voted for? Instead of voting you are better off creating value in society by doing what many of you do already: create something that improves someone's life.

cabalamat 16y ago
> If more people don't vote it will be harder for them to pretend they have a mandate to raise taxes, give money to the banks, and start wars. No it won't, they'll just say people who didn't vote were apathetic.
- jswinghammer 16y ago
  I'm hoping that if enough people refuse to pay attention they'll just go away on their own.
  - jrockway 16y ago
    You may want to rethink this strategy, because this is not what's going to happen.
    - jswinghammer 16y ago
      Can you really say that voting has made things better?
      - afterburner 16y ago

jasonkester 16y ago

Is there anything particularly worth voting for in this election? I tend to not bother voting for issues that don't concern me. And frankly, the vast majority of issues that people get all excited about don't bother me one way or another. I'm happy to pay a little more or a little less tax on various things, see schools built in one area and prisons not built in another. Go nuts with it all, and if it really effects your happiness I'm fine with letting you make little changes to the world around me. Until you come up with something I find important, I'd prefer not to concern myself with it.

daskrachen 16y ago
So you claim that there is nothing of interest in the topics that are voted on. How do you know that if you don't concern yourself with them? You can either be ignorant or informed. Not both at the same time. Claiming that everything is boring by way of being ignorant of everything is dishonest. I am not saying that current affairs are interesting, but I would prefer people to be honestly ignorant to simply being arrogant.
- jasonkester 16y ago
  How about this: Of the topics being voted on that people have gone out of their way to promote, or that the media have covered, none of them struck my curiosity to the point where I feel compelled to dig further into them. I asked here, on the off chance that somebody has one that they think the HN audience might care about.
  - afterburner 16y ago
    Congress votes on the budget, and all new laws or modifications to existing laws. You don't care if any of that gets effed up in ways you don't agree with?
    - Semiapies 16y ago
      Plenty. The delusion that anyone is actually voting between "person who won't eff things up" and "person who will eff things up" is not useful, though.

JohnDeHope 16y ago

Don't vote, it only encourages them.

jamesteow 16y ago
Doesn't sound smart to me.
- Semiapies 16y ago
  Let's get meta and go by the votes...

pbw 16y ago

Of 16,000 congressional elections over the last 100 years only one was decided by a single vote. So in some sense your vote doesn't matter, in that if you didn't vote the result would likely be the same. But one way every vote contributes is increasing voter turnout. Although your contribution is small, it always counts, no matter who you vote for. Mid-term elections have been averaging 37% voter turnout. As turnout gets smaller election results can drift arbitrarily far away from what the whole population wants, because only a subset is deciding. Corruption and manipulation become easier. High voter turnout is really really important to making the the election a legitimate process. I wrote about this recently: http://www.kmeme.com/2010/10/why-you-should-vote.html http://www.kmeme.com/2010/10/why-you-should-vote.html A thread with other suggestions why voting might be rational: http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/2z6/why_should_you_vote/ http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/2z6/why_should_you_vote...

mindslight 16y ago
> High voter turnout is really really important to making the the election a legitimate process. This is exactly why I am not voting; I'd rather not contribute to the illusion of legitimacy.

tibbon 16y ago

To say that most elections aren't decided by a single vote, and thus your vote doesn't matter; is like saying that no one goes bankrupt over a single dollar, so single dollars don't matter. If you agree that single dollars don't matter, send your extra ones to me please....

InclinedPlane 16y ago
Anyone who could possibly trot out the "a single vote doesn't matter, so whatevs" argument is either ignorant or hasn't been paying attention to the numerous high-profile extremely close elections in the last several years (2000 presidential election, 2008 Minnesota Senate race).
- Semiapies 16y ago
  In reality, those are considered remarkable because elections that are so close are extremely rare.
  - InclinedPlane 16y ago
    Many local elections can be very close. Regardless, if you don't want to vote, that's fine. That just gives my vote more weight.
    - Semiapies 16y ago
      So, the national elections you cited were not honest examples, gotcha. But yes, that it does give you "more weight". You can vote for Team Red or Team Blue and convince yourself either that the centrists who get elected are awesome and terribly supportive of the things you want - or that the remarkably similar centrists who got elected are crazy extremists who will destroy America.

ulvund 16y ago

Here in Denmark the participation of the electorate in general elections normally lies above 85%. You receive your voting voucher thing by mail 2-3 weeks before the election.

wakeup 16y ago

Don't vote! You are just sanctioning the killing of a lot of people.

eduardo_f 16y ago

Related thread: Ask HN: Election Day tomorrow, what do geeks think of the Tea Party? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1856675 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1856675

tmcneal 16y ago

For those of you looking to do some last minute research before voting today, my web app provides candidate information along with information on the positions each candidate supports or opposes: http://elect.io http://elect.io

jamesteow 16y ago
Cool and easy to use. We actually worked on something similar where we ask your position on causes and show the grades according to policies: http://www.votereports.org http://www.votereports.org
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- tmcneal 16y ago
  I saw your site mentioned on HN a few weeks ago and checked it out then.. I think it's great.. the design and user experience is especially well done!
Semiapies 16y ago
Very nice! Sadly, it just reminded me who my options were...

ihumanable 16y ago

Starship Troopers: "No. Something given has no basis in value. When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force my friends is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived." Voting is so badass.

Semiapies 16y ago
What struck me as funny in that line is that it's essentially a re-purposed bit of anarchist rhetoric...

nicksergeant 16y ago

Uneducated voters who vote just because people tell them to piss me off more than people who just plain don't vote. Politicians in our country are worse than salesmen. That's why we have such little voter turnout, not because people don't feel obligated.

CWuestefeld 16y ago

Please, do vote if you understand the issues, and where the candidates stand. But otherwise, please DO NOT VOTE. Just because an idea makes you feel warm and fuzzy doesn't make it right. There are plenty of things in this world that are counter-intuitive, and if you're relying only on your beliefs, there's a good chance you'll get it wrong. If you've never taken a class or read a book on economics, please don't vote. (I recommend Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlett [1]) If you've never taken a class or read a book on political philosophy, please don't vote. If you don't know the difference between natural law and utilitarianism, please don't vote. (I recommend reading J S Mill [2], or Locke [3], or Mises [4], or Hayek [5]) And if you don't believe me, then you should also read The Myth of the Rational Voter, by Bryan Caplan [6]. He discusses not only why voters do vote irrationally, but also why it's rational for them to do so. [1] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Economics_in_One_Lesson https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Economics_in_... [2] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/John_Stuart_M... [3] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/John_locke https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/John_locke [4] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mi... [5] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Friedrich_Hay... [6] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter%3A_Why_Democracies_Choose_Bad_Policies https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Myth_of_t...

kgosser 16y ago
Seth Godin disagrees with you: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/11/voting-misunderstood.html http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/11/voting-misun... Additionally, "if you understand the issues" is a vague, relative parameter. I know in the state of wisconsin I don't know 100% of the issues (and probably not even 50%, sadly. Been a busy year), but I know enough of what I like and dislike about the Governor and Senate battles to vote with confidence. I think your argument is a mute point. It's either damned if we do, damned if we don't.
- jbooth 16y ago

vaksel 16y ago

personally I don't vote for 3 reasons: 1. my vote doesn't matter. I live in a 100% blue state, it'll go Democrat no matter what. So whether I decide to vote democrat or republican or green, my vote really won't matter. + the redestricting is always aimed at propping up small states. Why does California and Delaware both get 2 senators? 2. the system is broken, there are no good politicians. There is no incentive for them to tell the truth or stick to campaign promises, so they don't. 3. it's too much of a hassle. If we can have a day off for Columbus day, I don't see why we can't have a day off for something as important as voting. And why does it have to be a day? Make it a 3 day weekend, so everyone gets a chance to vote. And voting should be easier, I don't see why I can't vote online...sure there might be some fraud, but surely it's possible to limit that, using a centralized voting website.

Retric 16y ago
Who you vote for is less important than the fact you vote. EX: Medicare is a direct result of a high percentage of older people voting. Even if you think Medicare is a bad idea, it’s really hard to get elected if you piss off the elderly.
- vaksel 16y ago
  voting is pointless until we get run off elections. 3rd parties that would have long ago become prominent in U.S. with runoff elections are still stuck with less than 1% of vote, because the public isn't voting for their best interests, but are instead forced to vote to stop the other guy from getting power. the democrats of today, are the republicans of just 10 years ago...and they get called socialists by the current crop of GOP. Why the shift to the right? Because they know they'll always have the Democrat vote, so they ignore them and shift to the right in order to get a few more independents.
  - Retric 16y ago
    In our system voting is less about picking the winner than scaring the winner into considering your opinion. Democrats in Red states are aften more conservative than Republicans in Red states.

tjr 16y ago

I once heard a story. It may be a cliche, it may be an old, tired, worn-out tale, but it marked my thinking. A village was planning a feast. All of the residents were asked to bring a bottle of wine, each of which would be mixed together in a large vat for everyone to partake of. One of the residents reasoned that a single bottle wouldn't make a difference, and so brought a bottle of water instead. When it came time to distribute from the vat of wine at the feast, it turned out the vat was entirely full of water, as all of the residents had come to the same conclusion. For nearly every practical purpose in our United States general elections, a single vote does indeed not make a difference. But a thousand votes might make a difference, and if those thousand people were all persuaded that their single vote wouldn't make a difference, and then didn't vote, then the difference would not be made.

Semiapies 16y ago
Find an election for a significant, contested office that gets no votes, and we can worry about this parable.
- tjr 16y ago
  It doesn't have to be an election with no votes. Just an election whose outcome could be changed by the votes of people who believe their votes don't matter. An election with 5500 votes for A and 5000 for B could be turned with 1000 more votes for B.
  - Semiapies 16y ago
    waves goodbye to the goalposts as they fly off Why would those 1000 votes all be for B? They could be for A. They could be evenly split between them. Most likely, they'd be proportionally split similarly to the original vote. You're looking at partisans' rhetoric used to motivate their supporters and mistaking it for logic.
    - tjr 16y ago
      If they are all for A, or split evenly between them, or proportionally split similar to the original vote, then these additional votes would change nothing. If they all (or enough of them) are for B, then they could change the outcome. Knowing nothing else, there's really no way to say for sure what would happen, but if they don't vote, then they certainly will not change the outcome.

pasbesoin 16y ago

I decided not to post this to HN as a topic, even though it is non-partisan and I support the message. But since there is already this "vote" thread, I offer your this perspective and perhaps motivation: [2008] Craig Ferguson: If you don't vote, you're a moron http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdRVQ4xwwmQ#t=06m25s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdRVQ4xwwmQ#t=06m25s The above link "cuts to the chase"; however, the entire monologue is worth watching (more commentary on the campaigning, including its hypocrisy).

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

umjames 16y ago

If the US truly believes that voting is important, why don't they make election day a national holiday so the voters don't have to worry about possibly conflicting work schedules keeping them from the polls? It's only 1 day, and it happens once every 2 years. Employers can't spare that?

pilom 16y ago

Google has a really good tool out right now to find your polling place: http://maps.google.com/vote http://maps.google.com/vote

araneae 16y ago

I'm not going to vote. It's not rational. It's a lot of effort and my vote is proportionately very small and therefore can have no effect. EDIT: Whoever downvoted this, YOU are the reason that HN is going to pot. You may not like that I am not voting, but instead why don't you instead respond telling me why I'm wrong?

dageroth 16y ago
Rational Choice Theory says you are right, but it can't explain why people vote nonetheless, even though the perceived cost is so high for the small actual gain. Some people seem to get value out of voting itself, regardless of the outcome, which is bad news for a rational choice theory only looking at the value of the outcomes and not the inherent value of the choice itself.

bradly 16y ago

I just don't think telling everyone to vote does any service to our/a country. Tell people to learn about the issues. Tell people to research the candidates. Then they will vote, and it won't be for the person on the sign they saw while driving to the polling place.

T_S_ 16y ago

I moved back to my native USA from Australia about a year ago, after living there for 6 years. I also spent two years in the UK in the 90s. Some contrasts were interesting. Majority rules in Australia and the UK. In the parlimentary system, the potential for gridlock is far less (Yes, the Aussie Senate does slow some things down.) However, the major candidates do have to say some specific things in order to get elected--because they then go and pass them into law. Look at what the UK is doing to their budget. Couldn't happen here. In the US, gridlock is so endemic elections are much more about personality and/or voter disgust. Mandatory voting in Australia. A good thing I think. A lot of American politics seems to be about convincing you to stay home because your candidate is a louse. In the USA, you could have Ghandi running against Mandela and there would still be mudslinging and scandal mongering.

Semiapies 16y ago

No. There are no close races where I care about the outcome in my district. There are no initiatives I care to support or oppose. I have fairly equal and tremendous disgust for both of the majority parties. On the issues I care about, I've bashed my head against reality enough to learn that the parties are indistinguishable in practice. I'm not going to trot down to the polls to give anyone a little thrill of excitement that they've gotten another vote for their preferred team. Nor am I going to throw one of a handful of symbolic votes for a minority-party candidate for any office. The mainstream takes no notice of or interest in "third party" results, and any other interpretation of the supposed value of a symbolic vote is essentially an argument for magic. I am not superstitious. As for mandatory voting: Fuck you. I am not your mule; carry your own damn partisan water.

spinlock 16y ago

[insert witty comment about down-voting at the polls here.]

btilly 16y ago

Here in California you get a free Starbucks coffee for voting.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

whackedspinach 16y ago

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.