4 ms·

Making a big case about voter turnout not being as great as other countries is a red herring. We have it really, really good in this country. So good that, pra

by mikece 7y ago

Making a big case about voter turnout not being as great as other countries is a red herring. We have it really, really good in this country. So good that, practically speaking, it doesn't matter who gets elected because things will continue to stay good. I read low voter turnout as an implicit vote of confidence in the system as a whole. You can be sure that if [stuff] was actually hitting the fan then everyone would show up to vote (and try to vote twice) to fix the horrible mess the city/state/country is in (whether in reality or perception). While I would agree there are definite issues with security, I really don't like the "print out the digital ballots" idea would rather see something block-chain based which is public and easy to audit. And I think it's unavoidable that some sort of biometric or other proof of identity will be required (take a selfie in order to vote!) before "voting with your phone" become commonly accepted.

deogeo 7y ago
Turnout can also be improved by voting on Sundays instead of work days. Yet they skipped that step and went right for electronic voting, that's nearly unanimously opposed by experts.
- mikece 7y ago
  Even better: 11 day window for voting window, starting on a Friday and ending on a Monday. Two full weekends to vote, no excuses for not being able to make it. Some states already do this with "early voting" which starts up to two weeks before the actual election day. And if you could pre-print your completed ballot to be scanned (once your identity if verified per local requirements) then the process could be very, very fast and efficient.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    > And if you could pre-print your completed ballot Your printer will betray you by printing invisible identifying dots on your ballot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Identification_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Identification_Code
    - swebs 7y ago
      How would that betray you? They're supposed to verify that this ballot belongs to you in the first place.
      - deogeo 7y ago
        I'm confused - wouldn't that mean the vote isn't secret?
        swebs 7y ago
        It won't go on record who you voted for, but someone at the office will have to confirm that you voted and enter in the vote. If mail-in ballots were completely anonymous, then someone could just print 10,000 copies and stuff the polls.
        deogeo 7y ago
        I thought we were talking about non-mail-in ballots, that you print at home, but submit personally.
- ssully 7y ago
  Just make it a national holiday
  - devonkim 7y ago
    Virginia just made it a state holiday, yay for progress. Too bad half the people that should vote will still be working on that day or don't even think about voting because they're too stressed to care.
Finnucane 7y ago
> I read low voter turnout as an implicit vote of confidence in the system as a whole. So, then the folks in Sweden and Denmark are voting because they lack confidence in their government, whereas in Estonia and Latvia, all is fine?
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  I can't comment on confidence in the system working well reducing turnout but I suspect that high confidence in the system being so broken voting won't ever fix it reduces turnout.
rsynnott 7y ago
> I read low voter turnout as an implicit vote of confidence in the system as a whole. Look at a map of voter turnout in Europe, and ask yourself is that REALLY credible. It's more likely that US low turnout is because, for many voters in many elections, their vote is kinda meaningless. If you live in California or Texas your vote in a presidential election is meaningless, say, and probably also in a senate election. Depending on your district, your vote in a house election is probably also meaningless; most are not competitive. As a general rule turnout is higher in countries using some form of proportional representation, as individual votes are far more likely to be impactful there (in a PR-STV system, for instance, it is pretty rare that all of a constituency's representatives are effectively decided before the election, whereas that's the case in the majority of US districts). Other factors; most US states have rather short ballot opening hours compared to other democratic countries (In Ireland, say, we generally have voting from 7am-10pm or so), and the US population is more dispersed than most developed countries, making traveling to a polling station more difficult. That said, voting by phone is an obviously unacceptable solution, as it destroys the secret ballot.
- rayiner 7y ago
  > It's more likely that US low turnout is because, for many voters in many elections, their vote is kinda meaningless. If you live in California or Texas your vote in a presidential election is meaningless, say, and probably also in a senate election. It's not like votes in state/municipal elections are higher, and in fact they are lower. (Governors' elections are very significant on meat-and-potatoes issues like transportation, etc., and routinely get 45-50% turnout.) > Depending on your district, your vote in a house election is probably also meaningless; most are not competitive. But why aren't they competitive? Because most people agree with the status quo. There is no point showing up to reaffirm the status who that you're happy with.

by mikece 7y ago

deogeo 7y ago

Turnout can also be improved by voting on Sundays instead of work days. Yet they skipped that step and went right for electronic voting, that's nearly unanimously opposed by experts.

mikece 7y ago
Even better: 11 day window for voting window, starting on a Friday and ending on a Monday. Two full weekends to vote, no excuses for not being able to make it. Some states already do this with "early voting" which starts up to two weeks before the actual election day. And if you could pre-print your completed ballot to be scanned (once your identity if verified per local requirements) then the process could be very, very fast and efficient.
- deogeo 7y ago
  > And if you could pre-print your completed ballot Your printer will betray you by printing invisible identifying dots on your ballot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Identification_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Identification_Code
  - swebs 7y ago
    How would that betray you? They're supposed to verify that this ballot belongs to you in the first place.
    - deogeo 7y ago
      I'm confused - wouldn't that mean the vote isn't secret?
      - swebs 7y ago
        It won't go on record who you voted for, but someone at the office will have to confirm that you voted and enter in the vote. If mail-in ballots were completely anonymous, then someone could just print 10,000 copies and stuff the polls.
        deogeo 7y ago
        I thought we were talking about non-mail-in ballots, that you print at home, but submit personally.
ssully 7y ago
Just make it a national holiday
- devonkim 7y ago
  Virginia just made it a state holiday, yay for progress. Too bad half the people that should vote will still be working on that day or don't even think about voting because they're too stressed to care.

Finnucane 7y ago

> I read low voter turnout as an implicit vote of confidence in the system as a whole. So, then the folks in Sweden and Denmark are voting because they lack confidence in their government, whereas in Estonia and Latvia, all is fine?

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
I can't comment on confidence in the system working well reducing turnout but I suspect that high confidence in the system being so broken voting won't ever fix it reduces turnout.

rsynnott 7y ago

> I read low voter turnout as an implicit vote of confidence in the system as a whole. Look at a map of voter turnout in Europe, and ask yourself is that REALLY credible. It's more likely that US low turnout is because, for many voters in many elections, their vote is kinda meaningless. If you live in California or Texas your vote in a presidential election is meaningless, say, and probably also in a senate election. Depending on your district, your vote in a house election is probably also meaningless; most are not competitive. As a general rule turnout is higher in countries using some form of proportional representation, as individual votes are far more likely to be impactful there (in a PR-STV system, for instance, it is pretty rare that all of a constituency's representatives are effectively decided before the election, whereas that's the case in the majority of US districts). Other factors; most US states have rather short ballot opening hours compared to other democratic countries (In Ireland, say, we generally have voting from 7am-10pm or so), and the US population is more dispersed than most developed countries, making traveling to a polling station more difficult. That said, voting by phone is an obviously unacceptable solution, as it destroys the secret ballot.

rayiner 7y ago
> It's more likely that US low turnout is because, for many voters in many elections, their vote is kinda meaningless. If you live in California or Texas your vote in a presidential election is meaningless, say, and probably also in a senate election. It's not like votes in state/municipal elections are higher, and in fact they are lower. (Governors' elections are very significant on meat-and-potatoes issues like transportation, etc., and routinely get 45-50% turnout.) > Depending on your district, your vote in a house election is probably also meaningless; most are not competitive. But why aren't they competitive? Because most people agree with the status quo. There is no point showing up to reaffirm the status who that you're happy with.