
Remind HN: Vote - DanielBMarkham
Okay my fellow American hacker knuckleheads. As citizens we are not supposed to do a lot of things, but being an informed voter is one of them.<p>I know that Erlang innards is way more interesting than the usual partisan nonsense that goes on, and I know that as smart folks you've probably already realized that your vote, especially in places overwhelmingly one-party, won't decide anything.<p>None of that matters. Voting is a civic duty. It's a rite. It's a shared ritual. It's not a game where we're trying to get our way. It's an shared obligation where we all agree that this is the way to make decisions instead of guns and clubs in the street.<p>So no matter who you like or dislike, get out and vote. Please. We need you.
======
edw519
_"I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On
Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no
right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If
you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that?
If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get
into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have
done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to
complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote -- who did not even leave the
house on Election Day -- am in no way responsible for that these politicians
have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created."_
\- George Carlin

~~~
sgift
> but where's the logic in that?

You didn't vote. So, the better candidate (for whom you could have voted)
wasn't voted into the office. So, the worse candidate was voted into the
office. You are responsible for the election of a bad candidate.

q.e.d.

Note 1: I know, analyzing quotes is useless, but I couldn't resist. Note 2: If
there are only bad candidates the situation is more complex, but this is an
edge case which only happens in thought experiments.

~~~
Nursie
Hypothetically - All candidates disgust me and have abhorent views contrary to
my fundamental views on human rights, ethics, privacy etc.

What now? One of them may agree with me on a single, small issue, the other
doesn't. But how can I vote for that guy if I know that he's going to continue
eroding everything I stand for on every other issue?

~~~
jamesbritt
_One of them may agree with me on a single, small issue, the other doesn't._

The _other_?

There are more than two candidates.

Even if a 3rd (or 4th or fifth) party candidate doesn't have a chance of
wining, a better showing in the election makes it, at least somewhat, easier
for such parties to get press coverage and admission to national debates in
the future.

~~~
Nursie
This goes directly against the advice I responded to though - that if you
don't vote for the lesser of two evils you are directly responsible for the
greater of the two getting in.

I disagree with that stance. It appears you do as well.

------
crntaylor
Anyone who hasn't seen it should read Peter Norvig's Election FAQ,
particularly the section "Is it rational to vote?" [1]

Short version: "Yes. Voting for president is one of the most cost-effective
actions any patriotic American can take."

Slightly longer version: "The value of not voting is that you save an hour of
your time. The value of voting is the probability that your vote will decide
the election (1 in 10 million if you live in a swing state) times the cost
difference (potentially $6 trillion). That means the expected value of your
vote is $600,000."

[1] <http://norvig.com/election-faq-2012.html#rational>

~~~
yummyfajitas
But the value of your vote isn't actually 1 in # of votes. It's actually
P(your state undecided) x P(nation undecided without your state) x (Value of
your candidate winning - Value of other candidate winning).

For example, say your state has 10 million voters and the election is a
statistical dead heat (i.e., each voter has a probability of p=0.5 for voting
for candidate A vs B). Then P(your state undecided without your vote) = (5
million choose 10 million) x pow(2^-10 million) ~= 1/(sqrt(2 pi) 2.5 million)
= 1.6e-7.

And that's assuming the best case where your state's voters could go either
way. The probabilities become exponentially smaller (literally: exp(-n^2)) if
your state actually has political leanings.

I'm also not sure how we could even approach a $6 trillion gap under plausible
assumptions. Does anyone really believe that the gap between each candidate is
$6 trillion (note: total economy is $15B) or $20k/person?

~~~
goldfeld
If you take compound interest and the legacy for generations to come into
consideration, the difference from decisions made today between the candidates
would easily surpass $6 trillion, and possibly while you're still alive.
Besides, things like education, over time, have far more intangible and
invaluable implications than a figure could ever show.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_If you take compound interest and the legacy for generations to come into
consideration..._

And also don't use a discount rate...

 _Besides, things like education, over time, have far more intangible and
invaluable implications than a figure could ever show._

Could you explain this claim?

------
tokenadult
The counterpoint to this message was shared by a friend of mine on Facebook
(he is a high-tech company manager) right after it was published. "Your Vote
Doesn't Count: Why (almost) everyone should stay home on Election Day"

<http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/03/your-vote-doesnt-count>

didn't convince me (I'll be voting today), but both the mathematics and the
political science in this article are interesting for rationales for NOT
voting.

Vote or not as you wish. As Winston Churchill said, "Many forms of Government
have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one
pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that
democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that
have been tried from time to time."

AFTER EDIT: Today's news includes an analysis of why voter turnout in the
United States is only around 60 percent of persons eligible to be voters,

[http://news.yahoo.com/why-40-americans-wont-vote-
president-2...](http://news.yahoo.com/why-40-americans-wont-vote-
president-231957289.html)

a lower percentage than in some other democratic republics.

Thanks for the first comment received below this one, which points out that
local elections can matter for voters as well as the presidential election. I
have some very close races to vote in today in the state Legislature and on
proposed amendments to the state constitution.

~~~
zerostar07
That article seems to grossly ridicule the motives of voters. Voters don't
have to be either vanity freaks who think their vote will change the outcome
or deluded armchair altruists. What if people simply vote because not only
most others do, but because they want to weigh in their modest (even ill-
informed) opinion. History shows it's the best way to figure out who should
run an office.

~~~
sdoering
I can only talk for the German system here. But I looked at the numbers and
calculated, that there is no reason for me to vote.

My individual vote does not change anything, but gives the mainstream-parties
money for their campaigns. As I firmly do not believe in their agenda, I try
not to compensate them.

I was once a party member, and having seen their inner workings disgusted me
and robbed me of everything, I believed to be true in an democracy. So giving
money to them by voting is something, I cannot square with my conscience.

But we have a different political system here. And there are some interesting
ideas on the theoretical ROI of voting in different US-States. So the
situation might be very different for you.

From a German, totally subjective, perspective, I really hope, that Obama
wins. But either way, I do not believe, that the outcome of the ballot really
changes a lot (on a global scale).

Lobbyists will push legislation, firms will try to make money and the world
will turn to another day tomorrow. War will be the way to secure some national
agendas and poor or middle class people will try to make a living.

~~~
zerostar07
Well, if a substantial percentage of voters thinks this way, maybe democracy
has run its course. After all, sovereign democracies haven't changed much
since the french revolution. Personally, i find rising trends like
libertarianism rather frightening though.

BTW, i'm not american, i'm greek so i know what a broken democracy looks like.
I 'm split on the US election; was disappointed by obama so far to be honest.

~~~
sdoering
Well my goal was to determine, when the radical right parties would have a
seat in parliament. I detected, that really an unrealistic lot of people would
have to stay at home.

I wanted to debunk the popular argument, that the one who does not vote, votes
for the extreme parties.

------
confluence
More specifically vote for Obama. For the love of America don't let the
Republicans screw us all. Us international hners literally do not understand
how the idiocy that is the Republican party continues to exist - we literally
cannot understand it.

1 global financial crisis. 2 disastrous wars. 1 ruined economy.

Don't screw it up a second time.

~~~
jgrahamc
"Us international hners literally do not understand how the idiocy that is the
Republican party continues to exist - we literally cannot understand it."

It's a grave mistake to think that all non-US persons believe that Obama would
be the best president, or that the Republican party is an aberration.

~~~
robin_reala
Confluence might have been hit with an attack of hyperbole, but a recent BBC
poll[1] somewhat corroborates his assertion: _An average of 50% favoured Mr
Obama, with 9% for Mr Romney, in the survey of 21,797 people in 21 countries._

[1] <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20008687>

~~~
pbhjpbhj
I wonder how many of those people could name a single policy of either party
nevermind demonstrating that their choice is at all informed by anything other
than what each person looks like or which pop stars support them.

~~~
polshaw
I think you would be _very_ surprised. As a non-US citizen i know almost as
much about US politics as my own country's. People around the world have an
interest in US politics, it is nothing like asking someone about Japanese or
German politics. My guess is that many countries have a proportion of informed
people that is not massively far off the US.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
If you watch Newsnight or read a broadsheet or similar then you'll probably be
well informed; if not then your preference is probably based on your music
taste or the media coverage of Romney's underwear style.

To be very surprised then the levels of knowledge would suggest we might get a
properly informed vote here sometime.

I hope I'm being too cynical.

------
Nursie
Yeah, no.

Your vote is your submission of your mandate to be governed and your
preference of who does it. Not voting is a legitimate protest, IMHO, for one
that doesn't believe in representative democracy (I believe in direct
democracy or demarchy) and certainly for one who would see a pox both the
houses of the leading two parties.

I do vote, as a way to try to support change, but I understand and sympathise
with those that don't for idealogical reasons.

~~~
subsystem
I don't think abstention is a very good way to protest in a country with
already low voter turnout.

~~~
jkn
Indeed, acting like someone who doesn't care is not exactly sending a loud
signal that you disagree with the system.

~~~
Nursie
I'm not sure what you can do at that point though, because spoiling or leaving
a blank ballot gets you put in with those who weren't competent enough to
register a vote.

------
argumentum
Voting alone has little to nothing to do with participating in political life.
Imagine if you earned karma on HN by voting rather than by being voted up.

Participating as a citizen means trying to understand what makes society work,
applying this knowledge to your own life, and using reason to convince others
of your views. It also means listening to others' reasoning and being open to
being convinced to change your own views.

 _The keys are Reason and Freedom_. You have these abilities and rights by
virtue of being Human. _Use them_ , that is true citizenship.

------
jellicle
The reasons why people do not vote are many.

They do not include "I was unaware this was election day".

~~~
akent
[citation needed]

Of _course_ there are people who do not know or forget that it is election
day.

------
jacques_chester
If it was a duty, then voting would be compulsory (as it is here in
Australia).

Edit: obligatory-link-to-blogger-I-host --
[http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2012/11/06/the-dynamics-of-
divis...](http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2012/11/06/the-dynamics-of-division/)

~~~
mseebach2
"Duty" can refer to a moral obligation which I'm pretty sure is the sense DBM
referred to.

~~~
jacques_chester
Lots of moral obligations are also subjects of legislation, because it can
empirically confirmed that some people won't act morally without sanction.

~~~
mseebach2
Yes? And there are plenty of immoral laws. Morality and legality often
intersects but neither implies the other.

FWIW, I consider compulsory voting an immoral law, even though I generally
consider voting a moral obligation. A democratic government derives its
legitimacy from the people, as opposed to god (theocracy) or heritage
(heritable monarchy). Voting is the means by which the people reaffirm the
legitimacy of the political system that is in charge. When the very same
political system compels the people to vote, ie. give it legitimacy, the value
of the act of voting is watered down.

~~~
jacques_chester
Many people feel that compulsory voting is immoral.

However, insofar as the legitimacy of the system of government depends on the
franchise, it follows that a more thorough exercise of the franchise increases
the legitimacy of the outcome[1].

There are however perfectly practical reasons to have compulsory voting. The
biggest is that it dampens oscillations and creates pressure on the whole
political system to focus on the median voter.

If you gave me a dictatorial remit to reform the US electoral system,
compulsory voting would be one of the policy options I would choose. The
others would be instant runoff voting, possibly the abolishment of the
electoral college, holding elections on a Saturday and creating an independent
electoral commission.

[1] Sophistry, of course. You can counter-argue that only _willing_ exercise
of the franchise grants legitimacy. But of course, it is economically
irrational for any voter to turn out; just as it is irrational to pay taxes
voluntarily. For any such system to work, compulsion is a necessity. You
cannot make it go away, only decide where it is most required.

------
dsr_
Please take a moment before you vote to figure out what your long term
interests are. Consider that the Supreme Court will probably get a new member
or two in the next four years; they are appointed by the President. The
President does not introduce laws, but he runs the department that interprets
and enforces them.

------
sgt
For those of you that aren't aware of the "Erlang innards" meme of HN, check
out: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=512145>

------
gabemart
I find the "motivation to vote" problem a really interesting one from an
economics perspective. The marginal effect of one vote in a federal election
is statistically indistinguishable from zero. How do you motivate rational
agents to undertake an action with nonzero costs for zero marginal benefit?

In real life, the reasons for voting are soft and squishy, and millions of
people vote, so this problem does not immediately seem serious. But I wonder,
if you imagine a hypothetical system where every person acted purely
rationally, how could you create a political system where voting made sense on
a personal level, rather than out of some nebulous sense of civic duty?

The most obvious answer is to make voting compulsory as Australia does. I
wonder if there are any other solutions?

~~~
jellicle
I have suggested a one-in-a-million chance to win one million dollars. Voters
would receive a voting stub that was also a sweepstakes entry. Just take the
number of voters, divide by a million, round up, and award that many $1
million prizes.

The cost of running an election is perhaps in the $2/voter range, so this
would increase costs by 50%. Publicizing the names of the winners - "Bob Smith
won $1 million - for voting!" - would go a long way toward increasing voter
turnout, I expect.

------
mootothemax
And if you don't feel represented, why not still go along but spoil your
ballot? This way your dissatisfaction with the process will be recorded, and
your vote won't be confused with that of someone who just couldn't be bothered
to turn up.

------
mariusz79
It's a privilege not a duty.

~~~
yuchi
Actually that's not right. Your rights are given by your duties. I don't think
democracy is the best political solution, but it's practically the best we can
hope for. But as far as we live in one, we must expose our opinion and vote.
It's the only thing left. When you vote you are part of the society, you cast
your decision with your co-citizens.

PS: I'm italian, we lost our faith in democracy a lot ago.

~~~
mariusz79
Even when you don't vote you are part of the society. In addition you should
consider that not actively voting is also a form of voting.

------
tjaerv
Democracy is the worship of jackals by jackasses. \-- H. L. Mencken

------
protomyth
One aspect of the election is local. These people can have a rather harsh
effect on your life. From zoning to taxes to inane actions (e.g. soda sizes)
that change your quality of life directly. Regardless of how you feel about
national politics, it is worth some time to look at how your state
representatives, city officials, and school boards voted.

Your vote and speech does make a difference in these local elections and they
can have large impacts.

------
DanBC
(<http://ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html>)

(<http://ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html>)

(<http://imgur.com/a/As0m5>)

Some comments in this thread are thoughtful and interesting. But many of them
are an excellent demonstration of why political items are not welcome on HN.

------
antidoh
If a boat is loose and being pulled out by the tide, everyone on the beach
pulls on the rope. One individual on the rope doesn't make a difference, but
if no one pulls, the boat is lost. So we all pull.

------
ekm2
_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._ ~David Foster Wallace

------
polshaw
Here is (imo) THE strongest reason you have to vote..

    
    
      If your demographic votes, *all* politicians care about it.
    

Why do you think medicare is untouchable? (cf. 'obamacare').

------
cayblood
“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 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." \---David Foster Wallace

------
carsongross
Voting is how the state tricks the gullible into thinking they have a say.

I'll give you a quick preview: more war, more bailouts, more confiscation of
property. Regardless.

------
thebigrace
Agree 100%. Even if your vote doesn't matter, spend a tiny portion of your day
to be counted.

~~~
rwmj
The corollary is that even "wasted" votes (eg. for no-hoper third party
candidates) matter. Mainstream politicians take those into account and adjust
their policies accordingly. They do this because those votes for third parties
dilute their own voting base, and they want to avoid splitting off even
fractions of their own constituency.

Examples from the UK:

\- The Conservatives are desperate to take on policies from UKIP and even the
BNP, even though those two parties have no chance of gaining real power.

\- The Green party has 1 MP and next to no chance everywhere else, but they
have (or had, until the recession) a huge influence on politics.

~~~
martswite
> \- The Conservatives are desperate to take on policies from UKIP and even
> the BNP, even though those two parties have no chance of gaining real power.

Just out of interest which policies are you talking about?

~~~
rwmj
Limits on immigration. Extreme antipathy towards Europe (eg. the recent budget
argument). More in this article: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-
politics-19661190>

------
shortlived
Vote early, vote often, vote _SUPREME_

    
    
        www.verminsupreme.com

------
p3drosola
Voting is a rite, not right.

------
Toshio
To me voting is a sort of contract.

You get to vote who gets to rip you off with confiscatory taxes for the next
four years.

Whoever wins gets to confiscate your hard-earned money and laugh all the way
to the bank.

It's a contract I would rather not sign. Rather than voting someone into
office, a far more important decision for an individual would be whether or
not to sign such a contract.

Unfortunately that's a decision you and I don't get to make. Taxation is
dictatorship, you see.

~~~
jkn
Then vote for someone who wants to remove all forms of taxation?

But I can't tell if you seriously think society would be better without taxes.
Would you like to have private police, a private army, private courts of law,
a private environmental protection agency, etc?

~~~
sparkie
>Then vote for someone who wants to remove all forms of taxation?

It's not about who you vote for, it's about voting. You basically sign an
unmarked contract where the name is left blank, and filled in after the
election, and you put in your preference on the contract for who should fill
that in.

If your ideal is that you don't want to be restrained by such contract, you
wouldn't sign the damn thing, putting your preference as someone who "might"
not use the contract to restrain you.

------
rileycrane
And then let the world know: ivoted.co

