
Remind HN: Vote - DanielBMarkham
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.
======
cletus
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.

~~~
mahmud
I am Yank, Arab and Somali (I hold three passports) and I will soon be an
Aussie, via marriage. I have spent a year in Australia. My feeling is that
Aussies are not really as political as Americans.

American voting is under-informed and has low turn out, but at least the few
percentage of electorate that vote actually _care_.

Aussies .. I am not sure if they don't care, or if they're just good at hiding
their political views. It's far easier to speak to an American and learn about
his/her political stances. Aussies are much more opaque, in my experience, and
seem to be equally resentful of all politicians.

For all their bureaucracy, Aussies are far more anarchic and egalitarian than
any other nation that I am familiar with, except maybe Somalis.

Australians, at least the ones in NSW that I have come to know, consider the
government and politicians "a bunch of wankers". They're very pessimistic
about the people they elect; which is both nice, and also harmful.

Having said that .. Aussie Aussie Aussie!

[Edit:

People should harden the fuck up and visit Australia; everyone should live
there at least _once_. Just thinking about that place brings a smile to my
face. They're a nation of good-natured jokers, thoroughly beautiful I tell ya.
But be prepared to be bull-shat left and right; you will have a hard time if
you're a self-righteous prick]

~~~
MoreMoschops
"you will have a hard time if you're a self-righteous prick"

So how come nobody has told those internet censor wankers that a joke's a
joke, they've had their fun, and now it's time to get back in their box before
they feel the back of your hand?

~~~
etherael
Because it's largely inaccurate and Australia is packed with self-righteous
pricks, they're just self-righteous about things other than the author
originally implied.

------
joelmichael
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
> 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
> I would argue, voting is another [responsibility].

What is your argument?

------
CWuestefeld
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_...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Economics_in_One_Lesson)

[2]
[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/John_Stuart_M...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill)

[3] <https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/John_locke>

[4]
[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mi...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises)

[5]
[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Friedrich_Hay...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek)

[6]
[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Myth_of_t...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter%3A_Why_Democracies_Choose_Bad_Policies)

~~~
kgosser
Seth Godin disagrees with you:
[http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/11/voting-
misun...](http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/11/voting-
misunderstood.html)

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
Well, hopefully you're voting for Feingold. That guy's been one of the best
senators of the last 20 years, honest, doesn't take any lobbyist money and a
fiscal conservative, too, but he's in danger of losing to a guy who's entire
platform is "I'm not a socialist" (Feingold isn't either).

~~~
hnal943
No one has brought up socialism in this campaign at all. Ron Johnson has run a
specific, issue oriented campaign. His major focus is stopping the run away
spending of the Obama agenda. He entered the race when Obamacare passed,
because he felt that was the last straw.

Feingold on the other hand is standing by his vote for Obamacare. I haven't
forgotten the disdainful smirk on his face when he addressed his enraged
constituents at last years' health care town hall meetings, and I don't think
my fellow Wisconsinites have either.

This election is all about consequences for those who ignored the will of the
people, and Russ Feingold is chief among them.

~~~
jbooth
Where were you guys when Medicare Part D passed?

It's way worse for the deficit, and was a way bigger spending bill.

Oh, wait, that was a Republican.. I get it..

This is how Rome fell - if beating your domestic enemies is more important to
you than improving the country, you are hurting the country.

~~~
orangecat
_Where were you guys when Medicare Part D passed?_

Libertarians were loudly protesting. To no effect of course, because
Republicans were behind their guy and Democrats were primarily complaining
that it wasn't expensive enough.

 _if beating your domestic enemies is more important to you than improving the
country, you are hurting the country._

I agree completely. Please mention that to the President if you run into him:
<http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69929420101101>

~~~
jbooth
No, democrats were primarily complaining that it was outrageously expensive,
budget busting, and didn't even do any good because all of the money went
straight to the drug companies (see my above comments on lobbyists).

RE: Obama, you must be kidding. The man is a born compromiser, the problem is
that Republicans haven't been willing to compromise on anything. They voted
against their own deficit commission, for crying out loud, after Obama decided
to support it.

~~~
hnal943
Blaming the Republicans doesn't make any sense. Democrats have the votes to do
whatever they want to do, which is why it's so easy this year to hold
incumbents accountable.

~~~
moxiemk1
No, they don't? The Republicans have used filibuster as a threat at an
unprecedented level. The Senate has only nominally been in the Democrats'
control.

EDIT: Punctuation

~~~
hnal943
Until Scott Brown's election last year, the Democrats could have ended any
filibuster attempt immediately. Democrats had a free run for a year. For the a
year and a half now, the public has been screaming for them to stop. Brown's
election was the first shot across the bow, but the Democrats paid no heed.

~~~
moxiemk1
It's been a traditional courtsey in the Senate for the party in power not to
shove through votes often, in respect that in the future they would eventually
be the minority party, and occasionally need to filibuster as well. The
possibility of removing the ability to filibuster has been discussed, but not
undertaken for this reason.

By filibustering so often, the Republicans are showing that this is no longer
the custom. Which is fine; I think it's a silly custom, and we'd benefit as a
nation if blocking legislation like that were impossible. But it is absolutely
a break from common procedure.

~~~
CWuestefeld
I think your memory is fuzzy. For example, under GWB, the Democrat's use of
the filibuster was also frequent and controversial. There were judicial
appointments that went unfilled for years because the Dem's refused to discuss
them.

(as much as it pains me to defend the GOP)

------
michaelkeenan
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-
approach...](http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/11/election-day-
approaches.html)

~~~
brudgers
> _"Informed voting > not voting > uninformed voting"_

The idea that "the uninformed" should not vote is contrary to universal
suffrage and has a long history of use for disenfranchisement. "Uninformed
voting" is in the eye of the beholder (working definition: uninformed voters
are those who both disagree with me and are outside my social group).

One person's criteria for being informed may be awareness of specific
proposals for complex policies, while another's might be the candidate's up or
down stance on a single issue, and for another it might be party affiliation
(noted on the ballot in most US jurisdictions).

Conversely, a person can be highly informed and vote in a way which damages
the community at large, e.g. a person may vote to reduce educational funding
thereby lowering their taxes with the intent of using the savings to fund the
production of child pornography.

Today, vote as well as you are able.

~~~
gojomo
The argument is not that the uninformed should be disenfranchised or in any
way prohibited from voting. They should be allowed to vote.

But, if someone has enough self-knowledge to recognize that they are
relatively uninformed, on a single issue or the ballot as a whole, they should
abstain from voting on those portions of the ballot. By doing so, they
delegate the decision to more-informed people.

The _option_ to vote if they are later agitated or informed remains important
-- but it doesn't have to exercised every time to serve its purpose of
defending their interests.

People moved to vote at the last minute by a speech about their 'obligation',
and deciding based on a few fleeting impressions from the last wave of
rhetoric, make the process more random and superficial. They are the people
most affected by negative ads, or simpleminded sloganeering.

~~~
brudgers
The idea of a government based on delegation of authority to the most informed
has its roots in antiquity. And although HN may be the first community to
actually governed by a philosopher-king, its ability to scale has not been
successfully demonstrated.

The problem as I see it, is that believing oneself to be "relatively
uninformed" does not make a person relatively uninformed (it may in fact lead
them to actively acquire more information - i.e why Severs believes he is
below average). Conversely, believing oneself to be well informed does not
make one well informed, and may alas lead a person to stop seeking relevant
information.

Indeed it would not surprise me if the people most affected by "simpleminded
sloganeering" tend to believe they are well informed.

The problem with "people should" in a political context is that it can quickly
become "people must" backed with the force of government, and any
implementation of: _"Informed voting > not voting > uninformed voting"_
requires disenfranchisement.

------
jdietrich
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
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).

~~~
rsbrown
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
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.

~~~
paradoja
One thing I don't like about the moral «obligation» to vote is that to many
people, casting a ballot is all the political action they can consider.
Politics seems reduced to elect one of the two big parties. It seems that the
alternative is, either to vote or to not make any political action.

The truth is that many people are politically active independently of wether
they vote or not.

~~~
kiba
_One thing I don't like about the moral «obligation» to vote is that to many
people, casting a ballot is all the political action they can consider.
Politics seems reduced to elect one of the two big parties. It seems that the
alternative is, either to vote or to not make any political action._

While others believe in voting, I believe in entrepreneurship for the sake of
eroding politics.

I have deep philosophical problems with governments and politics in general.
That's not likely to change.

However, I am not a cynical person. I believe I could change and undermine the
influences of governments and introduce voluntary and non-coercive form of
organizations.

------
DeusExMachina
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.

~~~
wazoox
> Italy has never been so corrupted in the past (transversally, in every
> party) as it is now

Are you sure? Did you forget the fall of all the "traditional" political
parties 15 years ago or so, and the first rise of Berlusconi?

~~~
DeusExMachina
I do not forget it. There could be a political debate on how Berlusconi went
into politics just to perpetuate the previous system, but this is not the
right place.

Looking at the Transparency International chart you can find Italy at the 67th
place, under highly corrupted african countries:

[http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/...](http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results)

Looking at the historical data you can see Italy going down the chart, from
position 29 in 2001 to 67 today:

[http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/...](http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2001)

------
tjr
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
Find an election for a significant, contested office that gets no votes, and
we can worry about this parable.

~~~
tjr
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
_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
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.

~~~
Semiapies
And you can always hold out faith that they'll vote the way you want them to.

Which is what you can see in the comments of this thread: hope that if more
people voted, things would shift more left-wing, more right-wing, more
centrist, etc.

Pure wishful thinking, nothing more.

(And the opposite side of the coin is shown by people bridling at suggestions
that _fewer_ people should vote and identifying such arguments as covert
attempts to undermine their preferred political team...)

~~~
tjr
I guess I don't understand what you're claiming. In the above example
discussion, I was claiming that if an extra 1000 people who wouldn't have
voted went ahead and did vote, then, depending on how they voted, either their
extra votes would make a difference, or they would not make a difference.
There is a possibility either way (even if the possibility of making a
difference is smaller).

On those grounds, I do not see voting as a pointless, worthless activity; your
vote added to the votes of others might be the deciding factor in who gets
elected.

The bigger picture is, does it matter who gets elected? As you bring out in
another thread, most of the major candidates "opposing" each other are
actually very similar in what they stand for. Voting one in or the other
probably won't make a huge difference. I guess if you want to claim that no
matter if we vote or not, the government isn't going to be much different,
that's probably fair.

To make more of an impact than voting, citizens may need to get involved as
candidates and really try to change things, but in order for that to work,
people would need to vote for them, which means, people would need to vote,
rather than not vote.

So I guess, to be clear, I claim that your vote, along with the votes of
others, can effect the outcome of the election. The outcome of the election
may or may not effect the outcome of the government, but that's another matter
entirely.

I for one am open to hearing suggestions on what we can do to improve the
government beyond voting, or running for office (success at which requires
people to vote).

~~~
Semiapies
I'm open to such suggestions, too.

------
tomjen3
> 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
If more people voted, if fewer people like you held an attitude like that,
then you wouldn't have to pretend.

~~~
mkr-hn
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
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?

~~~
mkr-hn
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.

------
jswinghammer
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.

~~~
devmonk
If you are a Libertarian, you should find and write-in your candidates, not
stay home. If there is no known candidate, you should write in "Libertarian",
if there is a space to do so. And if there is no Libertarian on the ballot,
you should learn as much as you can about the candidates and vote for the ones
that best match your set of values. Odds are that you lean either more towards
the liberal social values side or the conservative fiscal values side, so
there may be a Democrat, Independent, or Republican that leans similarly here
and there that you could vote for.

~~~
jswinghammer
I consider what you're describing to the equivalent of not voting anyway.
There isn't a candidate in my state who I could feel good about voting for. I
consider not voting to be a louder act of protest than voting for someone I
half or quarter like.

~~~
callahad
How can your non-vote be a louder act of protest if it can't be distinguished
from an apathetic non-vote?

~~~
jswinghammer
I consider those "apathetic" non-votes to be louder than voting as well. I
don't mind being lumped in with those people who just can't be bothered to
care. I sympathize with them.

------
pbw
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>

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
> _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
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
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
In reality, those are considered remarkable because elections that are so
close are extremely _rare_.

~~~
InclinedPlane
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
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.

------
kelnos
_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
_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
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.

~~~
Semiapies
It's the "extreme egotism" that involves not being interested in giving your
team points just because you keep barking at me that I'm "obligated" to do so.

------
vaksel
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.

~~~
mseebach
> Why does California and Delaware both get 2 senators?

Slightly off topic, but I'll bite: Because democracy is much more about
protecting minorities than ensuring the majority is in charge. If Delaware and
other small states were only ever represented on the federal level in
proportion to their population, only issues that Texas and California cares
about would ever be taken up.

~~~
vaksel
the problem I have is that it's never a single state getting proportion. They
always band together. So California with millions of voters become
insignificant, when 10 states with combined total of 500,000 voters band
together.

That's why we have more subsidies for corn production than science research.

I'm sorry, but 10 states in the boonies with no people, should not be able to
dictate policy to California. Crap like that is exactly why California ends up
subsidizing half the red states, who then turn around and vilify it every
chance they get.

~~~
protomyth
Well, as a resident of one of the red states that has our budget under control
(ND - surplus), I don't think California's problems are of our doing. Unions
in California shouldn't dictate policy to other states (and it looks like the
other states are going to foot CA's bill).

If we didn't have the current system, only about 20 cities would be campaigned
in for the Presidency. Also, given the bill a NY Rep tried to pass a couple of
years ago, we wouldn't be growing any crops in this country (eco bill -
massive urban support). The House is where population matters and is the
origin of every budget. The House is where the population is considered and
the Senate is for state considerations.

~~~
vaksel
Funny you should say that since North Dakota is the second biggest leech in
this country.

You guys get $2.03 for every dollar you send. (2nd highest in the nation after
DC)

California could balance it's budgets too, if it got double what it paid in
federal taxes every year.

~~~
protomyth
Your source? If you count defense spending (CA didn't want the ICBM silos), 2
air force bases, and interstate highway, yeah. We are on the border, have a
low population, and are a truck route (I94 and Hwy2). Having 600,000 people
will skew a lot of stats. Counting the reservations in that number might be a
little deceptive. Also, do we count the ongoing flooding? If the gov would
clear an outlet or just let us move a couple of towns, we could probably cut
the bill pretty nicely.

~~~
dkl
<http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html>

shows it to not be #2 but close to the top.

And I think the point is still valid that CA could balance their budget if we
had that nice ratio.

~~~
protomyth
That source doesn't have figures after 2005 and doesn't break it down by area.
The skew is the population figure versus infrastructure and defense. I would
imagine that the continued flooding will change the figure also.

California needs to get ahold of its pensions, no one can fix that but
themselves.

~~~
dkl
I agree about the pensions. 100%. My point was about the comparison between ND
and CA.

~~~
protomyth
My point is the comparison based on this one stat is pretty invalid due to
population differences and basic moneys allocated to infrastructure and
military by the federal government (I also bet they count the 4 reservations
in the ND number which adds to the skew).

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

------
frobozz
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
What if you disagree with the system of giving everyone a vote being a valid
way to decide things?

~~~
xentronium
Go and build your own country. With blackjack! And hookers!

~~~
devmonk
Sounds like Nevada.

------
Semiapies
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.

------
araneae
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
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.

------
jasonkester
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
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
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
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
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.

------
tmcneal
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>

~~~
jamesteow
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>

~~~
tmcneal
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!

------
JohnDeHope
Don't vote, it only encourages them.

~~~
jamesteow
Doesn't sound smart to me.

~~~
Semiapies
Let's get meta and go by the votes...

------
nicksergeant
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.

------
rrc
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
we had this system in the past; it was incredibly racist.

read some history, chap.

~~~
michaelkeenan
rrc didn't deserve your condescending reply. Many policies were once
implemented in a racist way. That isn't an argument against implementing them
in a non-racist way. If you want to argue that the next implementation of
voter tests will also be racist, you have not made the case.

~~~
riffic
I'm sorry you consider my reply to be condescending, as that is not my
intention. I however find it discouraging when people refuse to learn from
history's lessons.

------
duncanj
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.

------
T_S_
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.

------
bradly
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.

------
pasbesoin
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>

The above link "cuts to the chase"; however, the entire monologue is worth
watching (more commentary on the campaigning, including its hypocrisy).

------
ulvund
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.

------
illuminatus31
Yes on 19 in Cali!!

~~~
Semiapies
This, I would vote for.

I'm not in CA, though.

------
umjames
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?

------
Mithrandir
> _...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.

------
whackedspinach
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.

------
pilom
Google has a really good tool out right now to find your polling place:

<http://maps.google.com/vote>

------
adolfoabegg
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
Far, far more bad officials were elected by good citizens who _did_ vote.

~~~
Semiapies
I'm pretty sure _all_ of them were, in fact...

~~~
philwelch
I'm sure a lot of bad politicians were elected by stupid or evil voters (i.e.
bad citizens).

~~~
Semiapies
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
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).

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

~~~
Semiapies
What's so great about that, anyway?

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

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

------
eduardo_f
Related thread: Ask HN: Election Day tomorrow, what do geeks think of the Tea
Party?

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1856675>

