
Tell HN: Vote. - speek
If you can, vote. It is your duty as an American to speak for yourself. We have the power to change things, we have the power to make the world a better place.<p>Just vote.
======
mstefff
Find me one candidate that isn't completely full of s&%t, and maybe I'll cast
a vote. Maybe one person that understands English enough to actually answer a
question in front of a camera. It's insulting.

90% of the population doesn't have a single clue about how the government
runs, anything about the economy, foreign relations, what any of the
candidates are even speaking about. It's a population voting blindly based on
which TV shows and commercials they happen to watch. We have states that
practically automatically turn towards a certain party each time. An electoral
college system makes all of the difference. Overfunded campaigns that buy your
vote like big companies sell you their garbage. It's a mess..

~~~
johns
So don't vote for a major party or write someone in. If you don't vote, don't
complain.

~~~
Prrometheus
If you vote for someone that fucks you over, THEN you can't complain. After
all, you voted for him.

Non-voters have every right to complain.

~~~
potatolicious
On the contrary - if you vote for someone and then they go back on their word
and fuck you over, you have _every_ right to complain - the candidate
committed what is essentially fraud, by bait-and-switching you on policy.

Non-voters have every legal right to complain (guaranteed by the First
Amendment), but IMHO do not have a moral right to do so. You refused to take
part in the process, how can you complain about its results? Even if you tried
in vain and failed, at least you cared enough to toss a piece of paper into a
box. If you don't like any of the candidates, write someone in, or, cast an
objection/blank ballot. Believe it or not, people DO track these stats, and
casting a blank ballot gets you counted in the turnout totals, and would be
mighty embarrassing if the winner won without even a majority.

------
blackguardx
It's not just about the presidential election. Perhaps the greatest impact a
voter has is on his local community/state. Here in California, our referendums
have far-reaching consequences. Too much emphasis is placed on the
presidential election.

~~~
mstefff
\+ idiots who think their campaign 'promises' we all be passed and implemented
by Nov. 5th

------
kirubakaran
No more election news after tomorrow, yay!

~~~
aneesh
No, that's when the retrospective "This is how [Obama|McCain] won" articles
start about who was best organized, who used technology best, etc :)

~~~
qwph
If I ran a newspaper, I'd have both articles already written, so I could hit
the press as soon as the result was confirmed...

~~~
mattmaroon
I promise you that everyone who actually does write a newspaper already does.
They do that with sports or just about anything that runs late at night but
needs to be printed early.

~~~
mixmax
And don't forget obituaries. Usually the job of interns is to write obituaries
so that they're ready when someone unexpectedly dies.

~~~
wensing
Unless it's Fidel Castro. I work at a newspaper in South Florida. His
(incomplete) obituary is very long and has not been written by an intern.

------
IsaacSchlueter
In most cases, your vote is meaningless. The common duty and celebration of
whatever is kind of BS. You're better off convincing someone who would have
voted differently not to vote at all. Instead, the two of you can celebrate
your rights with beers, which is way more enjoyable, and has the same effect
on policy.

If you live in California, Obama will win this state. It's not even a contest.
Why not do something creative with your vote? Have some fun with it. You know,
you can write in ANYONE's name for the presidential election.

Hypnotoad 08!

Proposition 8 really is pretty close, and is evil. It's worth going to the
polls just to vote no on that. Religious fundies come out in force, and we
need to balance their hate.

~~~
yters
And the more Republicans you convince that it is meaningless to vote, the more
certain a Democrat win is - so it's inevitable!

Since a Democrat win is inevitable, no one needs to bother voting. Saves all
the hassle of standing in line and such.

~~~
astine
Obama held a rally two blocks from my home last night. There were over two
thousand at the rally all partying and having a good time. I imagine that they
all went home so confident that the next day they forgot to vote.

I'm joking of course. This state will swing blue this year. But, it's happened
before that over-confidence has lost an election.

I suggest that every man go out and vote his conscience. It's not just about
who wins this time. It's about perception, and exercise of your rights. If you
don't exercise your rights, they will be taken away. Even if you disagree with
both major candidates, a vote of 'other' will do more for your cause than no
vote.

~~~
yters
Seriously, I'm becoming more persuaded that voting for the right person is
much more important than some pragmatic, battle winning perspective that says
minimize evil and maximize win potential. One election is not that much in the
grand scheme of things. The funny thing is that once everyone realizes this,
the principled vote becomes the pragmatic vote.

Disclaimer, I didn't do that this time, so don't take this as reverse
psychology. If you think it is, go ahead and vote pragmatically. If that
confused you even more, then don't vote. Now stop thinking about it before
your head explodes.

~~~
IsaacSchlueter
"So, did you vote for Obama?"

"No, I wrote in for the Ron Paul/Hypnotoad ticket."

"WHAT!? But you don't want McCain to win, do you?"

"No, but I live in California. Unless I vote a couple million times, my vote
doesn't matter. California's blue by about 20 points."

"I can't believe you!!"

Some people just don't get statistics.

~~~
yters
Where'd this vote hypnotoad meme come from? I've seen it pop up a couple
places today.

------
markm
I don't think the message should be Just vote, but rather get educated on the
issues and cast an informed vote.

~~~
speek
You're completely right.

I probably should have explicitly said that, but I meant people should get
educated as well.

~~~
eru
Too bad all that education gets reduced to essentially one bit..

------
scudco
I know this might rile a few people up, but I think voting is coercive.
Personally, I don't see myself ever participating in a vote unless I know
everyone involved in its consequences is a consenting individual. So I
respectfully disagree that it is my duty or anyone's duty to participate in a
coercive vote. <http://is.gd/3WIh>

~~~
dejb
You wouldn't like Australia then. Voting is compulsory. You would risk a $20
fine (or having to come up with a good excuse) if you don't vote. Orwellian
maybe, but they do have sausage sizzles and cake stalls which most people seem
to like.

~~~
laut
And expensive, capped, government controlled internet. Which the government
wants to add an extensive government firewall to. And logging/surveillance of
which websites people visit.

But who want's freedom when you can have sausages? ;)

~~~
dejb
> And expensive, capped, government controlled internet.

Geographic reasons for the capped and expensive internet. Long undersea cable
to the US. Historically we have paid for traffic both to and from the US.

Government controlled? How? At least we can still play poker online or bet on
the US elections. What restrictions do you mean?

> Which the government wants to add an extensive government firewall to.

Yep this would suck but it's not operating yet and can still be stopped.

> And logging/surveillance of which websites people visit.

Um no. You'd be thinking of the NSA there mate.

> But who want's freedom when you can have sausages? ;)

I'd welcome a legitimate comparison of the virtues of the Australian as
opposed to the US system of democracy.

------
DanielBMarkham
Voting is one of the few things the system asks you do to around here. So get
off you arses and vote!

My son is a ardent Democrat. My wife a Republican. Each year, she stops by and
picks him up on the way to the polls.

The act of voting should be important on a personal level that transcends
statistics or apathy. It's a common duty and celebration of our right of
choice.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
if their votes cancel each other out why bother?

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Because voting is about a lot more than counting votes.

That's the point. We aren't in some struggle against the evil other guys
(republicans, democrats) that are out to ruin our country. That's partisan
election-year bullshit. Instead we are intelligent people who have honest
differences. We're in this thing together a lot more than we're in this thing
to exert our will over other citizens. Voting is being part of the system.

Not only that, but voting is a re-affirmation that we _can_ vote. We can
choose. Making good choices is important even if you're in the minority.

It's symbolic, but that's not the nature of my argument. It's _required_. Even
if their votes cancel each other out, it's required that they take the time to
make the best decisions they can and to exercise their right of choice. Like I
said, it's one of the few things that's expected of us lunkheads.

~~~
mseebach
To paraphrase Dijkstra: Democracy is a much about voting as astronomy is about
telescopes.

------
bprater
Don't forget this:

You are picking a President of our Great Nation for the next 4 years.

However, you are also electing a President that will likely choose one or more
new Justices for our Supreme Court. That choice could live on for the next
30-40 years.

If a conservative President is elected, the court will likely swing
conservative with his choice in one or more Justices. Liberal decisions like
Roe V. Wade may be overturned. Pick a liberal President and it will likely be
upheld.

It is those kinds of decisions that the court will make that will affect you
in a direct way for a very long time.

If that's important to you -- vote.

~~~
jdavid
I unfortunately do not believe that is sufficient value in arguing about
something that is so personal to people.

A president's first concern should be to the sovereignty of a Nation (economy,
education, infrastructure, trade, military), and somehow, whether or not a
woman wants to kill her unborn child is of little concern to me on a national
level. That is something that should be decided by her religious beliefs or
where she chooses to live and raise her family. I meat so many female
vegetarians that don't want to kill a cow to eat it, that I can not imagine a
woman aborting a baby because its FUN.

Women typically have a reason, and if we want to stop abortions there are so
many pieces to the puzzle that making abortions illegal will not stop them.

If the reasons are economic, then we need to give single mothers more help.

If the reason is emotional in the case of rape and inceast, we need to be
understanding to let them choose.

If the reason is medical, and life threatening, the moral lines are gray at
best anyways.

If it was done as the result of a carefree sexual behavior, stopping abortions
are not going to stop pre-martial sex. Heck I bet many of us on this forum are
1st borns and very well might be the result of a opps between two unmarried
lovers.

It really pains me that we can become so easily divided on a topic that is so
personal and so hard to be black and white on.

I really wish there were more political options than YES or NO.

~~~
lutorm
I'm with you here. Besides it being a matter of the majority tyrannizing a
tiny minority (same with same-sex marriage), while I can see how people can
feel strongly about it, I'm surprised they really feel it is so important that
it should trump issues affecting their own daily lives like economy, health
care and the environment.

~~~
yummyfajitas
You are surprised probably because you either do not understand their position
or do not believe they honestly hold that view.

Abortion opponents tend to believe unborn babies are living humans. This
implies abortion is the murder of a baby. Hence, legalized abortion is
enabling the murder of millions, i.e. genocide.

Is it really surprising that people consider genocide _here in America_ to be
a larger issue than the economy?

Note: I'm not going to argue this idea one way or the other, no one will
change their mind. Just pointing out that if you understand the logic of
abortion opponents, a fanatical opposition to abortion is quite
understandable.

~~~
jdavid
its surprising that people continually choose arguments that are mono
cultural. its a big world out there and societies have existed for millennia
in a number of ways. its just hard to fathom that in a country that honors the
freedom of religion, that we still do not get poly culturalism.

------
mhartl
Vote if it makes you feel good---whether out of a sense of participation,
obligation, or duty. But don't kid yourself that you're "making a difference".
The probability that your vote makes any difference is negligible. And please
don't give people who _don't_ vote a hard time; theirs is arguably the more
rational choice, so there's no need to be self-righteous about it. (I am
voting, BTW, but mainly to have an answer to the question "Who did you vote
for?" I have to admit that feels a little cowardly.)

~~~
mechanical_fish
_The probability that your vote makes any difference is negligible._

On the contrary: On any given issue, my vote cancels out a vote on the other
side. That's a pretty important role. Without my vote, my side's excess votes
would fail to carry the day.

The only way to have one's vote fail to "make a difference" is by finding
someone who votes exactly opposite to you on every issue and making a pact
with them not to vote. But you have to make sure they don't sneak off and vote
when you're not looking. All in all, it's a lot easier to just cast a ballot.

~~~
DEinspanjer
Sure, if you are a member of the two parties that make up the US political
system.

If you are not a member of those two parties, your vote holds no worth within
the political system. The two major parties normally dismiss or deride issues
made by the green or libertarian parties. In some cases, it is possible that
my vote outside the two party system can cause the person I least prefer to be
elected. Yay!

Until the US abolishes the electoral college and institutes a more
representative election system such as an approval or preferential system
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting>), I will continue to be
dissatisfied with voting for the president.

~~~
nihilocrat
Preferential voting probably won't work. I think the two-party system is a bit
of a result of culture: we feel the need to shoehorn every political issue
into an "us" vs. "them" debate.

Don't forget, however, that there have been third parties in the past that
have been popular enough to carry states. Unfortunately, they are generally
one-trick ponies that are only present in a single election.

Examples:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_194...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1948)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_191...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1912)

~~~
eru
Why do you think it won't work? And what about approval voting?

------
patrickg-zill
If you are an idiot, please do not vote.

~~~
staunch
Or at least vote for my candidate of choice!

~~~
Retric
I think idiot's voting for your candidate is corrosive to that political
party. Take republicans and farm subsidies they are directly in opposition to
most of the "core" principles of personal accountability, free trade, less
government etc but try and find a republican in Idaho that does not support
them.

~~~
netcan
That's not a product of idiots voting. It's a product of compromise.

The US system, favours a binary choice. You vote A or B. Australia (where I
live) is even more this way. It's a stable sort of a system. Governments are
fairly powerful. There is less need for the shaky post election coalitions of
different systems. But it comes at a cost: Compromise.

Republicans (from what we hear down here) get votes from social/moral
conservatives, religious conservatives, social libertarians, nationalists,
militarists, & lots of other subgroups. Then you get these smelted into
traditional voter groups. So an rural area in some part of the US with a
certain religious, moral, social & historic heritage might be generally
sympathetic towards a militarist, nationalist, socially conservative &
religious party. In the US of 2008, this is the Republicans.

Along comes a decade where the region stands to gain from certain policies.
For technical reasons, these policies are at odds with the part of a political
theory at the centre of their parties history. This is the part of the
political theory that supports less government intervention in their lives, a
lot of freedom over their property, personal lives, & a lot of other stuff
that they like. But the link between economic policy & individual liberty is
very academic. They just want the damned price of canola to stay put.

Under a different political system (say Italy's), this issue could cause a
party split. Lets say, the ICP (Idaho Conservatives Party) is formed. They put
a bit more emphasis on this & a bit less on that but stay close to the former
party line. The difference is they support the subsidies which benefit their
voters. They join the coalition that the Republicans now need to form
government because three of four of these parties split. This allows the ICP
to focus mostly on subsidies & a few other issues that are important to their
electorate.

The ICP is free to say they mostly leave issues other then sex education,
subsidies & genetic patenting to the Republicans. The Republicans are free to
admit that they don't like subsidy A, but it's a small price to pay to form
Government. Otherwise they would have to get a different party on board with
different compromises or reform the government. Theoretically, this allows
parties to stay loyal to core principals.

Deals get done either way. The US's system is more stable. But you could argue
it's less Democratic. Minority opinions are under represented. Voters make
bigger compromises & get a less granular control over what their vote means.
This is probably felt more now that there are several divisive issues on the
agenda.

~~~
kaens
Just FYI, there are (at least in the US) multiple meanings of "social
libertarian". Most people I know that would use that label for themselves are
closer to being a classical anarchist or socialist, and do not vote
Republican.

------
peregrine
It's my first time voting in a major election. Ever since I was a young lad I
dreamed of voting. Every election I vote, city council, state, federal,
whatever I vote. I take the 20mins to Google and find out what I need and make
a decision.

If you say "Who cares anyways one vote isn't going to matter" think of it this
way.One rain drop doesn't create or fill a river, but a million together do.
Every time you exercise your rights to vote you add a small drop.

------
rewind
And to all the non-Americans on HN -- myself among them -- please don't forget
to post a reminder to your fellow countrymen/women on HN to vote if your
country is having an election. I'm sure all the people who upvoted this post
will be super-pumped to see that at the top of the homepage! Some other TellHN
topics that I'd like to see in the future:

\- Just say no to drungs \- Don't drink and drive \- Have your pets spayed and
neutered

I'm Canadian, and I'm just giving you guys a hard time ;-)

Actually, I think most Canadians are a bit jealous because we just had an
election that was a huge waste of money and didn't mean a damn thing. I have
to admin, yours is way more interesting.

------
mattmaroon
I think Hacker News is now officially looking down and seeing a shark pass
below.

~~~
Tichy
I am not too concerned if singular special events end up on HN. There are not
enough events of that scope to pose a threat (I presume).

~~~
mattmaroon
It's just the clicheness of it that bothers me. Nobody in the country needs a
reminder. It's the same with all the various holiday messages.

~~~
Tichy
At least we also had the "don't vote" counterpoint by freakonomics.

------
ivankirigin
I don't really like blind calls to vote. If you don't have an educated
opinion, or even an inkling based on a gut reaction of character, don't vote.

------
far33d
I thought this was going to be a plea about how to keep crappy stories off the
front page.

------
Prrometheus
Your vote will make no difference. Statistically, you have a better chance of
winning the Powerball lottery than making a difference with your vote.

Voting is not "speaking for yourself". You are allowed to speak one of two
things, neither of which may be what you want to say.

You do have the power to change things and make the world a better place, but
not through the political process.

If you stay home from the polls and use that time to read to a child or help
an old lady carry groceries, you will have done more good for the world than
if you spent the morning voting.

Most of the good things in this world, our vast cultural heritage and our
technological richness, have not been generated through the voting booth. If
you want to contribute to the material and spiritual wealth of our species,
you will find your efforts best spent elsewhere.

If you buy into the hype and feel compelled to vote for the entertainment
aspect of it, don't pretend that you are better than those who did not. You
aren't.

When the officials you vote for harm other people through their actions in
office, those people have the right to complain, even if they did not vote.
Morality is not overridden by democracy.

~~~
rms
I presume you will be staying home and reading to a child instead of voting
today? You're a much better person than everyone else on the internet. If only
the whole world was like you, we'd have completely eliminated everything wrong
with society by now.

~~~
Prrometheus
I will be voting, but I acknowledge that it is purely for entertainment value
and that I am not changing the world and that I am not morally better than
those that do not vote. In fact, many of them are probably morally better than
I.

~~~
tjr
Of course, if everyone except for you didn't vote, then your one vote would
mean a lot more. If everyone except for you and me didn't vote, then our votes
would still have significant value. If everyone except for you and me and ten
others didn't vote, then...

...well, somewhere along the line, do our votes really stop mattering? A vote
for X amid thousands of votes for Y doesn't mean much, but if all of the Y
voters figured their votes didn't matter and stayed home, then the one vote
for X would be pretty important.

That said, I fully expect that my one vote won't make any difference in how
things turn out, but I still feel compelled to cast it. For the democracy to
function as intended, we ought have as many valid votes as possible; for me to
expect votes from others but not vote myself simply because my one vote
doesn't matter would be absurd.

~~~
Prrometheus
Most of the ways that people rationalize their voting behavior can also be
modified to rationalize the purchase of lottery tickets.

------
Shamiq
Throwing this out there:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/magazine/06freak.html?page...](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/magazine/06freak.html?pagewanted=print)

~~~
apmee
Fascinating it is, but there's already been a post on it today.
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=352540>

~~~
Shamiq
Yea, I couldn't find the link fast enough. Thanks.

Anyway, I think it belongs in the flow of this discussion as well.

------
fallentimes
But also realize one of the great things about living in a free country, even
with all of America's faults, is the ability to exercise your right _not_ to
vote.

~~~
hugh
In Australia we have compulsory voting. Everybody has to get off their arse
and do it (or at least go to a polling place, take a ballot sheet and stick it
in a box, you can leave it blank or draw a penis on it if you want).

Personally I see both upside and downsides to it. On one hand it's a violation
of my right not to vote, but on the other hand that's one of the more minor
violations which the government by necessity commits anyway. The upside is
that it leads to more moderate politics -- there's no need for the parties to
appease the "base", so they always wind up fighting in the centre.

~~~
bmunro
Because it is compulsory, it is also very easy to vote in Australia.

Most people can walk to their local school, community hall etc. There are
places to vote absolutely everywhere.

There are no queues to vote. You just walk in and vote. This year, I queued
for the first time ever. there were four people in front of me, I had to wait
maybe twenty seconds.

Voting is always held on Saturday

~~~
hugh
I'm guessing that the no-queueing is also due to the nice low-tech pencil-and-
paper voting solution we have. I have no idea how many voting machines are at
a typical US polling place, but I'm sure they can't serve nearly as many
people in parallel as the Australian style little cardboard booths, where any
decent-size polling place will have dozens of people voting in parallel. The
bottleneck is at the place where they look up your name in a giant book (never
a computer!) but I've never had to wait more than a few minutes there either.

------
axod
Isn't 1 vote per person just mob rule though? You end up with the lowest
common denominator...

Doesn't it sort of irritate the hell out of you if you're informed, voting for
the best interests of the country and future, while someone next to you is
voting because the candidate has a nice smile or has the same first name as
them.

Maybe you get a vote when you can answer a few simple questions to prove you
actually have a clue what you are voting for etc.

You wouldn't run a company by giving an apprentice the same voting rights in
decisions as the CEO.

Personally I think there's a lot to be said for having a monarchy.

I know these views are probably completely counter to most people, but that's
life... Thought I'd give my 2c.

------
jackowayed
Also, if you can, try to vote in the middle of the day to both alleviate and
avoid long lines. They say 9am-3pm is the least-busy time.

------
mynameishere
We live in interesting times.

(1/2 of the possible results of an ancient Chinese curse. I think.)

We all know that voting is statistically meaningless--in fact, even if the
vote comes down 50.0 million to 50.0 million, the actual result will be
decided by whoever has the better lawyer in the inevitable supreme court
spectacle.

So really, the only value is in the psychological effect voting has on
yourself. Libertarians sometimes say "Don't vote" for this very reason,
because voting makes you a participant in a corrupt system. (It's a standard
brainwashing tactic to get people to _say_ things they don't believe. Even if
they know they don't believe, the honorable sense of "keeping one's word"
overwhelms reason.)

Therefore, 3rd party votes are completely legitimate, since elections are
pyschologically valid and mathematically pointless.

~~~
jncraton
Voting is not statistically meaningless. Voting gives us a good way to judge
where the majority of the nation wants to go. Just because your vote doesn't
decide the election does not mean that your vote is meaningless. It carries
the same weight as mine, McCain's, or Obama's. This is a good thing.

~~~
mynameishere
Yeah, it is. Math is funny that way. In fact, it is _probably_ a net-negative
activity to drive across town to purchase a lottery ticket for 0 (zero)
dollars that has a 100 million dollar payoff at 1:100,000,000 odds. Why?
Because the time/energy expenditure of driving across town itself is a cost in
excess of the likely returns. Voting is the same way, except you get somewhat
less than 100M if you win.

And, if there's confusion, I'm talking about individuals voting, not groups.
This is why sending large checks to favored candidates is _not_ meaningless.
It can sway many people, ultimately.

------
PStamatiou
Dear Texas, THANKS FOR NOT SENDING MY ABSENTEE BALLOT! I don't know how many
forms I filled out, but you never sent me a ballot. I have my voter
registration card here and everything. Short of an 800 mile roadtrip or
standby flight home, looks like I'll be sitting this one out. :-/

------
sdurkin
The best reason to vote is not that your vote will change the election, its
that the process of voting will change you.

It causes you to consider the problems in your society and be aware of
proposed solutions. Sounding your voice is just as important as being heard.

~~~
kaens
Lots of people vote without considering anything at all, or without being
aware of proposed solutions.

Hell, I'd guess that the majority of voters yesterday were not very well
informed about any of the proposed solutions.

------
igorhvr
I find it amusing that a popularity contest (and one not really different from
a high school one in any significant way) is used to decide who will take
charge of a country.

I am also impressed to see otherwise intelligent people defending this scheme,
and honestly believing it to be a great one or even claiming there is not
better alternative.

------
mindslight
Yes please just show up and fill in a bubble for either of the candidates
likely to win. You too can help legitimize both the appointment of a president
who only has support from 35% of the population, and the process of using
machines which will change your vote when it actually matters!

~~~
tlrobinson
I think you're lost. It sounds like you're looking for www.reddit.com

~~~
mindslight
What's the difference between reddit and HN with blatant political topics such
as this one? Normally I avoid feeding political comments on HN, but with this
_submission_ it seems any decency has gone out the window.

I'm going to the polls tomorrow due to tradition and ease of conversation. But
if one's default action is to stay home, they'll get more done by sticking
with that. Hackers change the world by writing code, not by checking a box and
hoping that somehow _this_ time will be different.

~~~
tlrobinson
You're right, and I think this whole submission and thread of comments
illustrates exactly why political topics are typically avoided on Hacker News.
It quickly devolves into sarcastic comments, and more sarcastic comments
poking fun at the original sarcastic comments.

Your comment was just very similar to the things I'm used to seeing on Reddit,
but not Hacker News.

Anyway, I'm looking forward the elections being over and Hacker News hopefully
going back to it's good old self of mostly technology and entrepreneurial
related posts.

------
yagibear
Haven't we already voted in a poll from PG
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=349421> asking "Allow stories about the
election?", with 49 yes and 218 no when I last checked?

------
ashleyw
Wish I could vote, I've suffered though the campaigns just as much as any
American, and lets face it — what ever the US does, the rest of the world
follows.

But if I could...it'd be for Obama.

------
Stubbs
I hope the UK pays half as much interest in the next General Election as there
has been over the US election.

Unfortunately I don't believe we have any candidates half as compelling at
Obama.

------
thomasfl
If I were an american I'd vote. You guys need a change.

------
hollywoodcole
Go vote! If you guys can stand in lines for a xbox 360 and iphone you can
stand in line to vote.

------
asnyder
Just voted, and it felt great!

~~~
APLonDrugs
Agree, Me too:-)

------
markessien
I wonder what the headlines will be tommorow. If I were an editor, I'd go for
one of these tabloid headlines in 24pt font, depending on who wins:

Bradley Baloney!

Obama in Power!

McCain upsets Again!

Blowout!

Guess who's coming to the White House?

------
elidourado
Not voting.

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and
deserve to get it good and hard." \-- H. L. Mencken

------
nihilocrat
Too late! I already early voted. Do all states have early voting or just some?

------
astine
Done.

------
time_management
Although I intend on voting tomorrow, I don't agree that it's a "duty" to
vote. In fact, I usually don't vote in local elections if I don't have
substantial knowledge about the candidates, and given that I've moved about 10
times in the last 6 years, that's often. (The top few Google hits do not
amount to "substantial knowledge".) The purpose of voting is value discovery
(analogous to "price discovery" in financial markets) but if I'm not able to
evaluate the candidates, I'm not really assisting in that process; I'm just
adding noise. I think that a major reason the two-party system exists is that
a significant number of people vote based on party "brand name" without
evaluating the individual candidates.

------
lst
(I have to give you a really bad notice: Obama is _not_ Christ. So _please_
don't expect too much from politics.)

------
pkrumins
Not just vote -- vote for Obama!!!

------
debt
Don't just vote; vote Obama.

~~~
viggity
I really don't understand the Obama-ness of HN. I'm certainly not busting my
ass working on my business just to see Obama "spread my wealth around".

I understand the realities of having a progressive tax system, but Obama
crosses a line with me when he is going to tax the rich just to hand it
straight over to everyone else in $1000 cash increments. At least in the past
the Democrats wanted to buy the poor $1000 in fishing equipment instead of
handing out $1000 worth of fish. His plan is the very definition of Marxism.

~~~
debt
The upper class can go without a few luxuries so that the lower class can
actually afford necessities. Don't be such a selfish pussy.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Aside from your language, which violates board terms, can I point out that
captialism, the thing that drives startups, is dependent on people acting in
their best interests.

"Selfish" is a loaded, emotional, subjective term. Not something to base a
policy on (and I don't think Obama or McCain is doing that)

~~~
debt
You contradict yourself. You're saying that politics has a place in my self-
interest yet my self-interest doesn't have a place in politics.

Capitalism is based almost ENTIRELY on acting selfishly. However, as we can
clearly see, people suffer greatly from the near literal implementation of
capitalism. Therefore, there needs to be a system in place to help those
people who have become victims of it.

~~~
dgordon
Near-literal implementation of capitalism? Where?

~~~
debt
Depends on your version of capitalism.

~~~
cjoh
Just going ahead and nailing Godwin's law down here buried a little deep in a
thread.

...hitler, etc. therefore such as.

------
kajecounterhack
[http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/09/mitra-economy-mess-tech-
ent...](http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/09/mitra-economy-mess-tech-enter-
cx_sm_1010economy.html)

Time for us to buckle down and admit that Obama's going to win and that angel
investment is going to suffer a bit, and sole proprietorships with taxes
rising from 35%->50% are going to have to bite the bullet.

------
telliksemoh
OBAMA STRAIGHT UP LIED!!!! He said he had nothing to do with the CFR(Council
on Foreign Relations) Then why is his wifes name on the list? Oops? So i guess
your wife is in it but you have nothing to do with it!? OK! If you're voting
for Obama or McCain, they are members of the COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, and
the NEW WORLD ORDER. Clinton, too. They are for globalization and one world
government. Their plans are to build the NAFTA superhighway, starting in
eastern Texas, heading north. They will be stealing Americans land by emminent
domain. Then the opening of the Canadian and Mexican borders will be next. We
will then be called the NORTH AMERICAN UNION, followed by the new currency,
the AMERO. The USA will be dissolved.

~~~
rms
I like the Council on Foreign Relations. They do rule the world, but they
aren't as extreme as they are made out to be. It is more like, no one ever
questions them, because they are always right. If the NY Times has a bias, it
is in favor of the Council on Foreign Relations's world view. When you get
down to it, it is really bizarre how much influence these think tanks can
have, the most profound example being the
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Ce...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century)

Globalization is not so bad. Either way, it's inevitable. The CFR may rule the
world with their quiet influence, but the rest is conspiracy theory. If the
world eventually unites in world government, it will be the UN running things,
not your mysterious new world order.

Obama is not a member of the CFR, but he gave a speech to them, as required of
all serious presidential candidates.

