
Ask HN: Do you vote? - chishaku
Why or why not?
======
cauterized
Yes. If I didn't vote, what incentive whatsoever would my representatives have
to act in my interest? I may not have a statistically significant impact on
the outcome, but neither do any of the other tens of millions of people who
vote. Even if an individual vote isn't statistically significant, the
aggregate of them is, and because non-voters are self-selecting we can't count
on those who vote enthusiastically to be a representative sample of the
opinions of the populace. Each person who makes the decision that their vote
doesn't matter helps our country slide away from government by the people and
towards government by corporations.

Living in a part of the US that skews VERY heavily towards one party, I
especially vote in primary elections, which are where it's actually determined
which congresscritter or senator we'll be sending to Washington or the state
capital. And yes, I will absolutely vote my heart rather than strategically in
a primary. "Electable" too often isn't.

And I make sure to vote in off-year state and local elections too because
those actually have more impact on my daily quality of life in the short-term
than national ones do. (Whereas national elections have more impact on the
long-term direction of the country, especially when there are Supreme Court
vacancies likely).

My state allows a candidate to run for office on multiple parties' slates, and
will aggregate those votes for the candidate. I dislike one party much more
than the other, but there are third-parties far closer to my actual positions.
I'll often vote for a major-party candidate on a third-party slate, which both
helps ensure that the third party remains on the ballot for the next election
cycle and hopefully helps send a message to the major party in question.

(Edited for typos.)

~~~
greenyoda
_" Living in a part of the US that skews VERY heavily towards one party, I
especially vote in primary elections, which are where it's actually determined
which congresscritter or senator we'll be sending to Washington or the state
capital."_

This is exactly the case in NYC, which is heavily Democratic: the winner of
the Democratic primary is the most likely winner of the general election
(where they sometimes even run unopposed). In the recent primary in my
district, the vote for City Council member was won by a margin of a few
hundred votes, since the voter turnouts for primaries are pretty sparse
compared with the general election. One person's vote really makes a
difference in this situation.

~~~
dllthomas
You mean, a few hundred people's votes really make a difference in this
situation.

Voting has a bit of a free-rider problem. To a first approximation, one vote
never makes a difference; but an attitude that voting doesn't make a
difference (especially when unevenly distributed) definitely makes a
difference.

------
mindcrime
Yes, I usually vote and I've even run for public office before ( Lieutenant
Governor of North Carolina, 2008, as the Libertarian candidate. I wasn't
elected).

That said, I am somewhat ambivalent about voting and democracy. I think
democracy is basically just a euphemism for "mob rule" and find that whatever
systems you put in to try and prevent the "tyranny of the majority" never
really work. And if you're on the losing end in a "democratic" system, are you
really "represented"? I argue that the answer is "no". I don't hold Richard
Burr, David Price, or Thom Tillis as representing me in any way. I certainly
didn't vote for any of them, and would't if you paid me to.

Basically I'm a voluntaryist / anarcho-capitalist / market anarchist /
whatever-term-you-prefer, who wants to eliminate most of "government" _as we
know it today_. Note that does not mean I'm in favor of chaos or opposed to
communal action (this is something critics of libertarian thought often get
wrong.. seemingly intentionally at times). I just want _voluntary_ exchange
and self-government to be the fundamental basis for society, with use of
force/violence reserved for self-defense.

~~~
eimai134
I agree. I'm libertarian with a lower case "l" and not too big on democracy. I
don't want my town voting on the best way to do heart surgery for me. Why do I
want the masses voting on other issues that are equally important. The U.S. is
so divided right now, it seems like we could stop it all by returning to more
local, or at least, state governments being in charge of most things. No need
to enforce rules on a gigantic number of people who are all so different.

------
auganov
No. Looks like only people who do feel like commenting here. I guess people
who don't, like me, might just not care about it. Kinda like asking people who
don't believe in God why they don't.

Yes, I might not think I'd make a difference, I don't have anybody to vote
for, I don't think parliament members make much of a difference, I'm not crazy
about democracy etc etc. But in the end I guess I just don't care.

If there was a special party or person that I'd really believe to be a game
changer, I might. If I was American I would perhaps vote next year depending
on who gets the Republican nomination.

------
PaulHoule
Yes.

I used to be an organizer for the Green Party so I am capable of very cynical
views of the electoral system but also going door to door to get signatures,
running candidates, etc.

In local races, even up to the state legislature level, I often know the
people involved personally. I've had friends and acquaintances run for local
offices as Greens, Democrats and Republicans. I even meet a congressional
candidate from time to time.

For the presidential election next year the immediate thing on my mind is that
I don't want to see a Hillary Clinton - Jeb Bush matchup because as much as
the "Anderson-Horowitz politics" people on HN would find that easy to swallow,
it would set a very bad precedent for our country.

~~~
a3n
> I used to be an organizer for the Green Party so I am capable of very
> cynical views of the electoral system

Cynical?

I always vote 3rd party when available, because I know they won't win. It's a
"none of the above" vote, where "above" means dems and reps.

~~~
PaulHoule
For me it really depends.

If I actually like a mainstream candidate I will vote for them. Personally if
I was in a "swing state" I might be more inclined to vote for a mainstream
candidate but I am in the kind of state Hillary Clinton would go to get
herself a solidly democratic constituency so most of the time I vote for
whoever I want.

------
cweagans
Yes. If I don't vote, I have no right to bitch about whatever scumbag takes
over a given office for the next term.

Also, I might be naive enough to think that if I vote despite my cynicism and
outspokenness against the shit politicians pull, maybe - just maybe - I might
inspire just one other person to vote. And if I manage to do that, maybe
they'll inspire someone else and eventually people will start engaging with
politics again, instead of just handing the reins over to the people that
stand to gain the most from voter disenfranchisement.

~~~
cpursley
> Yes. If I don't vote, I have no right to bitch about whatever scumbag takes
> over a given office for the next term.

Please. When our choices are a turd sandwich and a douchebag, we absolutely
have the right to complain.

“Whether it is exerted by ten men or ten billion, political authority is force
… the power of the Rods and the Ax” - Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers

~~~
avmich
Wow, somebody on HN is taking Heinlein very seriously :) .

OP - really good words! Tempted to print the whole passage and hang in the
office :) .

------
0x01
No. I've never voted, not once.

I do not believe I live in a democracy, even though that's what we're calling
it. I believe that by voting I'm validating a broken system.

Who are all these people making calls about everything and setting rules,
while knowing relatively little on the subject matter? I personally think a
democracy would be every eligable person being able to contribute to the
decision of (ie. voting on) these calls, rather than simply picking the 'guy'
who makes them. Let the experts in their fields have a say. I don't know what
such a system would look like - but only if something like that were in place
would I call it a democracy. What we have right now is the illusion of a
democracy. I'm not interested in voting, but I am interested in fixing this
mess.

Back down to earth.. I think the barrier to entry for understanding current
politics is unrealistically high: in order for me to make a call on a party I
need to know quite a lot of things about each. There is no 'official source',
which forces me to google, which forces me to read some third party source,
whether it's a news site or some blog. Either way it's more often than not a
very biased opinion that does not weigh all sides equally, and I can never
form a complete picture. Too much time is required to contribute for what I
would gain from it, and I have better things to do. Is anybody aware of an
aggregator or a summary site of all political parties views? Can I look up a
party's stance on something and cross reference what the other parties stances
are on the same subject?

~~~
anywherenotes
Honestly, if you don't have time to form an opinion for what each party (or at
least main parties) stand for, then how will you have time to vote on each
individual issue? According to this website:
[https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics)
there have been over 10 thousands things those people have input one per year.
(sounds insane to me as well)

You don't want to micromanage each little decision, and you can certainly make
phone calls and show up in person to talk to some people in government to
discuss things you do care about.

~~~
0x01
You're right of course, I definitely do not want to do that. But I _know_ I
would vote individually on the issues that I care about.

For example, if everybody had a say, SOPA wouldn't have gotten as far as it
did. I would have voted it out, as would everybody else. But instead we had to
sign a petition once it was nearly through. We could all be pro-active
about... well, everything! But instead, we're kept on our toes being reactive
to it all. (opt in not out, people!!! This ideal should exist everywhere but
instead it's nowhere to be found).

If everybody did that, I believe that each of us would have more of an effect
on the country than electing somebody who is never going to agree 100% with my
beliefs, but is the best fit. That's insane! There will always be compromise.
In England, a party can promise to change x and y if you vote for them, but
once they finally come to power they might go back on their promise. Okay, so
what did I vote for then? Nothing. And there's no accountability. This system
is thoroughly broken and I refuse to acknowledge it by 'playing along'. And
the worst thing about this is that nobody seems to notice, or care that
picking the best out of a bad bunch is how we should make our country work.

Vote Waldo.

------
miguelrochefort
No.

I refuse to support a system that legitimates the voice of the majority. There
is little to no correlation between what the majority has been led to believe
is right, and what is actually right.

That said, I could see myself voting for a party that (intentionally or not)
would reveal the ridicule of democracy, a party that undisputedly wouldn't be
fit to rule the country.

------
chrisBob
I have voted in most elections I have been eligible for. Many people say they
don't think their vote matters, but we were just a few votes away from
avoiding the whole Iraq war mess[0].

The times I feel I have had much more impact though is when I wrote letters to
my elected officials. If you have an issue you really care about then write to
your representatives in the weeks leading up to a vote. I have always gotten a
reasonable response when I sent a personalized (not form letter) note, and in
at least one case I think I really helped make a difference in how they voted.

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount)

~~~
eimai134
Really? I have sent a number of letters to elected officials - I've only ever
gotten what appears to a form letter back. Glad you've had a different
experience.

------
joeclark77
I always pray for a blizzard on election day. When there's bad weather, a lot
of the low-information types who are only voting because they want the "I
voted!" sticker, will stay home. At least that's my theory.

------
yompers888
Last presidential election, I voted Ron Paul in the Republican primary, then
didn't vote in the general. If there's someone I like, I'll make the effort to
get registered and mail in my vote. Otherwise, it's not worth the effort of
figuring out what paperwork I have to send, and to whom. Having said that,
after my state elected the governor I didn't like by a narrow margin, I felt a
little guilty not voting. But, the truth is the democrats' strategy of funding
a libertarian candidate to hurt the Republican would've worked on me too, so
it wouldn't have made a difference.

I also don't think I should have the right to vote, as a pretty young person
with minimal skin in the game. The risk is too great that I'd seek just to
support the candidate who offers me the policies most beneficial to me, rather
than acting as a steward, so it seems like I should be left out.

My non-vote is noticed just as little as my vote for any candidate in a
presidential election, so I don't care too much, nor do I feel a need to make
a principled stand that will go unnoticed. I'd vote in lesser elections like
US Rep, but my congressman is pretty well set for every election. He's been
the Rep for my district longer than I've been alive, and I think he mostly
does a good job. He's the house sponsor for the bill that required carriers to
unlock phones, which I think has been fantastic for me, but in a freedom-
increasing, rather than pandering, sort of way.

------
yetanotheracc
No. My political views are extreme enough to not be represented by any
candidate. My non-participation decreases the legitimacy of the current
system, which I want to fail.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Why do you want the current system to fail? What do you prefer in its place?
How likely do you think it is that, if the current system fails, it will be
replaced by something you view as better?

~~~
yetanotheracc
Concentration of power in the hands of a single social class. Decentralized,
direct democracy. Not very likely, but I see myself benefiting from the
disruption.

------
MrZongle2
Yes, though in the past 10-15 years I've become increasingly jaded to the
point where I really wonder if it's worth it, at least at the state and
national level.

------
jseeff
Yes. I believe it to be a civic privilege and duty. My mother comes from a
country where (for her gender and religion) her civil freedoms were severely
restricted and I think it is important to engage in the process even if you
don't like the options. I believe a void vote is better than no vote at all
and I think real engagement to change the system is the best (although a
difficult) solution to the "no one represents me" argument.

------
toomuchtodo
Yes, because I believe the economy can be a more "fair" place, and that
everyone should have a minimum quality of life (voting for Bernie Sanders in
2016).

------
Mz
I have only voted twice.

Why: I have a serious medical condition which limits how much I can take on. I
spent a lot of years as a military wife and devoted mother, raising two
special needs sons. This was just a helluva lot of work, more than most people
seem to appreciate. Trying to stay up on The Issues was just not something I
could manage. My plate was overly full as is. I saw no reason to vote if my
choices were not based on some kind of meaningful information or opinion.

From what I gather, you see higher rates of voting and political activity in
older people, precisely because their plate is less full (with launching a
career, finding romance, raising kids, etc). It is possible that as I get
older and my life works better, I may someday feel able to effectively
participate in the process. I haven't made any decisions one way or the other.
It wasn't a Stance. It was happenstance.

------
a3n
Yes. Because I think it's my responsibility. But I am against legally mandated
voting.

------
gyardley
Nope. Not legally allowed to vote in my birth country, since I've been away
too long, and not legally allowed to vote in the country I currently live in,
since I'm not a citizen.

I have to admit I don't see much point voting on a state, congressional, or
federal level when living in areas that are completely skewed in favor of a
single political party. Were I able to vote, perhaps I'd vote in the
primaries.

It doesn't bother me too much - when I really care about an issue, which isn't
that often, I call a politician's office or two and donate something to an
appropriate PAC. That's probably more effective than voting directly.

------
theoldguy
Yes, Ivote. Usually for the candidate of the party which, in general, believes
as I do. If I don't vote, I am conceeding control to persons that believe the
opposite of what I believe. All candidates have weak points, but some are
deffently opposed to my main positions and toughts. If the current polls prove
to be correct, the up coming election for President will have two poor major
candidates, but the party platforms will be very different. I can support the
one.

------
MalcolmDiggs
Yes, but I rarely get any pleasure from it. If I want to feel like an active
participant in a democracy it typically takes a bit more than that.

Going to city council meetings, canvassing for candidates, collecting
signatures for propositions, etc...those all feel a bit more impactful than
voting...but I feel like a hypocrite doing any of those things if I myself
don't actually vote...so I vote too.

------
ddingus
Yes.

I devote about 5 or so percent of my free time to civics. This means learning
about my local options, who actually can impact my life in notable and
significant ways, as well as just being active. Being active means doing
advocacy actions, the occasional trip to the State capitol, phone banking,
GOTV efforts of various kinds, etc...

I sure wish I knew how to convince more 20 somethings to vote.

------
proveanegative
I believe that democracy does not scale beyond roughly several hundred voters
of roughly equal expertise and ability. I decide whether or not to vote
accordingly, which means saying no to local and national elections.

That said, I vote on Hacker News stories. Could HN be an example of a
moderated democracy (constitutional monarchy?) working well on a larger scale?

------
ukoms
Long time ago, when I was young and stupid I've mastered in politcal sciense.
So, now (when I'm only stupid), let me tell you this - question do you vote or
not is pointless. Only when you ask for motives right after makes any sense.
Because those two questions can show who you are and what your politicals
class is.

There is quite pleasant theory about what political systems are. It state that
you can represent all political systems as segment, on which both ends are
dictatorship and democracy. But, this theory also states that those two
systems are unachievable in our world, they are like asymptotes - all
political systems tends towards them, but never actually get there. If you
take a look at democracy - even Greek democracy weren't this perfect one -
yeah, everybody could vote. Except for a women, those who hasn't finished
their army service, those who haven't got status of a citizen and those who
were slaves.

Having this in mind, I personaly always go to elections and always vote.
Sometimes - in local elections - I know who had done something for my district
or city, and this gives me clear options. This man did this and that, he seems
fair and honest, he claims he can do few things better - yup, I'll give him my
vote so he can try his best. Other times - especially when it comes to
parliment or presiden elections I go to election but I don't have clear
options. I don't know those people and to be truly honest - most of them has
been on political scene for far to long - so I don't vote for them who have
the biggest election budgets. And it happened twice to this day - I made
invalid votes on purpose. Here, in Poland, we can't add our option to the vote
card. There were two cases where none of candidates on my voting card weren't
good enough to have my voice, so I write my types down which made my voice
invalid.

What does the first paragraph have to do with the second? I choose people who
will drag our political system towards this version of political system which
is nearest my opinions and preference.

And to all people who say that qoing to election won't change antyhing - yes,
it will. But it require some maturity and effort. It require to make a choice
and quite possibly to regret given voice. And then it require consideration -
"who I'll vote for if my previous choice was bad?". In some sense it's quite
biblical - be hot or be cold, not lukewarm. But... this would mean handling
the consequences of our choice, and we humans don't like to do that...

------
thrownear
No, because I see no parties any more. Because there are no philosophies, no
ideologies any more. There are only group of people who put up an appearance
of separate parties to engage in the farce called election. After it is over,
they go back to the ruling/opposing party drama, while collaborating and
robbing people at the back.

------
rajacombinator
I used to but after waking up I made a principled decision to abstain from
what is just another tax on my time. (Best case: trading time for the illusion
of voice.) I would consider voting for a moral statement candidate like Ron
Paul but sadly guys like that seem to be a once-in-200-years phenomenon.

------
echolima
Yes. Local, state, federal...may not always like my choices, but they are all
I have until I actually run.

------
dllthomas
Subquestion, for those in the US who show up at the polling place on election
day: Do you educate yourself about local positions and vote there as well (or
only?)? Or do you limit yourself to voting for those on the national stage
(who, of course, get more press)?

------
arisAlexis
I think voting should be obvious and a much better question would be: do you
vote the candidate you really want or the least bad of the candidates that
could actually be elected? (In parliamentary democracies with many parties).

------
6d0debc071
I do, it's a very small expenditure of time and effort even if the probability
of my vote making a difference is very small considering we live in a two
party system with... conveniently... set electoral boundaries.

------
soared
No. There is no difference between voting/not, bush/obama, this/that in my day
to day life. If I thought a politician would make meaningful changes, I'd vote
for him or her.

------
zhte415
Voted: 'None of the above'

This was an option that was successfully won for many years over (sometimes
concurrently, sometimes not) for the Student Union at my first university,
Imperial College London.

------
AnimalMuppet
Yes. But if the choice is Trump vs. Hillary, I'm going to sit that particular
race out, because I could not in good conscience vote for either candidate.

~~~
cauterized
There will always be at least one third-party candidate on the ballot, even if
they've got zero chance of winning. By voting for that candidate you signal
that you're a voter who WILL go to the polls and whom candidates should put in
some effort to court, while still indicating with your fringe candidate vote
that you are unwilling to support either major party candidate.

------
J_Darnley
No. Not registered here. That's probably partly why I am now represented by a
separatist party both locally, "stately", and federally.

------
sidcool
Oh. You meant in real elections. I thought on here.

------
Mr24601
No - too lazy.

------
sml786
yes i do vote

