
Vote.org (YC S16 Nonprofit) wants to use cell phones to increase voter turnout - ccdd4
https://backchannel.com/the-simple-secret-weapon-that-could-change-elections-9e51f95038df#.uyl8q5weq
======
rgbrenner
I don't agree that voting on a cell phone is the right solution here. I live
in Colorado, we get mail-in ballots and a book describing each of the issues.

I got mine last week. I sat down read over each item, did some research on the
internet, and filled in my vote. It was a long ballot (2 legal-sized pages
front and back), and took about an hour. Mailed it in earlier today.

How does doing that on a cell phone improve this? In fact, it sounds more
frustrating, because my phone is tiny, may need to be charged, internet
connectivity issues, etc.

And really, if we're going to talk about how flawed our system is, this is
like one of the more minor points. If you want to get to the root of it, let's
talk about how to get rid of the 2 party system, and allow more diverse
parties and ideas. That's the real problem.

~~~
pragone
Because not every state is like that. I live in Pennsylvania. I don't even
know what the ballot issues will be. Hell, I don't even know who is running
locally.

I also can't vote by mail just because I want to. I have to be out of town on
official business to "qualify" for a mail in ballot. Being on vacation isn't
even an apparently accepted reason (on mobile but I'll get a link)

Edit: Link to PA absentee ballot application:
[http://www.dosimages.pa.gov/pdf/AbsenteeBallotApplication.pd...](http://www.dosimages.pa.gov/pdf/AbsenteeBallotApplication.pdf)

Relevant parts:

Section A: I declare that I am eligible to vote absentee at the forthcoming
primary or election since I expect that my duties, occupation or business will
require me to be absent from the municipality of my residence on the day of
the primary or election for the reason stated below; and that all of the
information which I have listed on this absentee ballot application is true
and correct.

Section B: I declare that I am eligible to vote absentee at the forthcoming
primary or election due to the illness or physical disability stated below;
that the information required to be listed pertaining to my attending
physician is correctly stated herein and that all other information that I
have listed on this absentee ballot application is true and correct.

~~~
maxerickson
You can probably access a sample ballot (a quick search has PA counties doing
that). That takes care of the information difference.

------
kyrre
> VOTE.org is a 501(c)(3) registered non-profit organization and does not
> support or oppose any political candidate or party.

this is nothing but a Super-PAC for Hillary Clinton that exploit a loop hole
in the robocall laws

60 people holding down the 'enter' key 24/7 (it's not automated!). disruptive.

this is the most unethical company YC has backed since InstallMonetizer

~~~
maxerickson
Super PAC has a specific technical meaning, it's a PAC that has filed a
statement following guidelines established by a couple of court cases. The
statements are listed here:

[http://www.fec.gov/press/press2011/ieoc_alpha.shtml](http://www.fec.gov/press/press2011/ieoc_alpha.shtml)

I guess it would be more accurate to just assert that you believe they are
partisan.

~~~
sbhere
While the literalistic nature of your reply is correct, the parent delivers a
valid observation. Although it's true that a journalist may edit content to
direct the reader towards a conclusion, the subject of the article certainly
appears to have delivered a biased message on her own.

The tagline of the article isn't accurate: > Vote.org wants to use your cell
phone to radically increase voter turnout. Meet the woman behind the movement.

Four paragraphs in, the slant becomes clear and never abates: > A cluster of
votes could be the difference between Trump accepting a concession and a
several-year blowout over the presidency.

I had hoped that at some point the article or this YC-sponsored founder would
even tip their hat towards the appearance of equal representation, or
nonpartisan ideals, but the closest they came was more of and admission of
blatant bias: > Long Distance Voter, like Vote.org, was technically
nonpartisan. But many would argue that get-out-the-vote organizations
inherently lean democratic, because the citizens most underrepresented in the
voting process tend to be liberal.

So long as partisan efforts continue to pass themselves off as unbiased, the
problems will continue to mount. If anyone out there really wants to make a
difference in the electoral process of the United States of America, you must
do so by truly serving the people, not your own interests.

F/d: Of course I have my own bias, but I'm a rampant supporter of neither
party's candidate. I still haven't decided how to cast my vote, but I will be
voting. You should too.

~~~
maxerickson
Well no, it isn't valid to call it a Super PAC. Especially given the
availability of the word "partisan".

If we were just discovering that groups took sides a little bit of linguistic
fuzziness would be acceptable. Not knowing what some jargon means and using it
sloppily is just sloppy, again, especially in the face of a meaningful general
term.

I did say _I guess it would be more accurate to just assert that you believe
they are partisan._ in an attempt to make it clear that my comment was about
the language.

As far as whether get out the vote is inherently a partisan activity, I think
if you believe that voters skew differently than the general population, the
test for partisan activity is that it skews in the other direction, not that
it happens to skew less than the population of voters.

If it makes you feel better, I'm generally a crank. Here I am 6 months ago
telling the founder of Vote.org that their tax status isn't an interesting
defense of the activity:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11718069](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11718069)

~~~
sbhere
Ah, I wasn't clear. I was citing the bias indicated by the parent, not the
super PAC. You are correct in the definition.

My intent is not too harass you, but rather to encourage true public service
to those out there with similar desires (increase voter turnout) willing to
look past or work without blatant bias.

Apologies if I came across critical of your accurate statements.

------
pmoriarty
Would anyone else here prefer a paper and pen ballot system?

Computers are too easily hackable.

~~~
vidarh
I'd love both (paper receipts from an electronic system, that goes into ballot
boxes; count the ballots _and_ return the electronic records). But if I had to
pick one, I'd pick paper. We _know_ what to look for to spot fraud with paper
ballots.

~~~
greenyoda
In NY, we fill in bubbles on paper forms with a pen, and then we feed our form
into a scanner. So you get both an electronic tally of the vote and paper
artifacts that can be re-counted (either by scanners or people) if there are
any questions afterwards.

When you scan your form, the machine informs you if it's invalid (duplicate
candidates selected) or incomplete (no selection for an office), and you can
try again.

Before this we had ancient mechanical voting machines that would break down
all the time (but made a very satisfying metallic clunk when you pulled the
huge lever to register your vote).

------
supernintendo
I don't want any corporate involvement in our election system. I don't care if
you're a startup.

~~~
erikpukinskis
That's impossible to the point that it's completely preposterous. Utter
insanity. Even if you could change the law so that corporate involvement of
all types were illegal (not happening) corporations would still be involved
behind the scenes.

I think there is a fundamental difference between a corporation offering
(relatively) agnostic tools to help voters vote more in accordance with their
(the voter's) values and a corporation which is trying to actively influence
the election according to the corporation's values.

Why do you want to lump them together? And what goal do you think you're
furthering by pushing the idea of an election without corporate involvement?

~~~
manicdee
There are many countries around the world with actual democracies where
elections and vote counts are run by governments with citizens scrutineering.

It is not impossible.

~~~
maxerickson
This is the case in the United States.

Maybe there are some exceptions, but elections are generally run by each
county, with county officials supervising citizen volunteers. Citizens are
also able to inspect the equipment and process.

------
danielrhodes
In some ways, people feeling apathetic about elections is a luxury: not having
to care about what the government is or is not doing, especially as it relates
to your own livelihood, is something rare in history. High turnout (in the US)
happens when there is something special going on.

~~~
xjfjdjxnd
I would like to see some voter turnout data for comparison from other
"democracies" (e.g. Russia, Egypt) before jumping to that conclusion.

I get the distinct impression that voter turnout is low because no matter who
gets elected, voters have become accustomed to politicians not representing
their interests in any meaningful capacity.

~~~
kmonsen
The point still stands, if people _really_ cared they could get someone
elected that would change things.

This is still a real democracy if we choose it to be.

~~~
solipsism
"people" is not a thing that can make decisions. Each individual person might
care deeply, and yet doubt that every other person cares.

------
Unman
The problem is not with the voting system: it's with the fact that most people
are vastly under-educated and propagandised -- and that's just the Hacker News
population.

------
mindslight
Mentally replace "voter turnout" with "church attendance" and you'll gain a
clearer understanding of our society.

~~~
zardo
You're right, what we really need is a gamified religion app with prayer
congestion pricing, exciting confessional tellalls, and micro-indulgences.

~~~
mindslight
You interpreted my comment backwards. The point is to analyze Democracy in
traditional terms, not to port its techniques to older religions.

------
stmfreak
Why are we interested in getting apathetic and uninformed people into the
voting booth?

~~~
jiggliemon
This is really the meat and potatos of the electorate. The system depends on
knowing what giant swaths of the country are going to vote for. The people
that run for office (the parties, not the candidates) have a vested interest
in refining a race down to a few targeted areas. In presidential elections
that's only a dozen or so counties per swing state.

I can't speak for this specific effort; but most 'get out the vote' campaigns
are designed to fill one a single parties rosters. E.g. Rock the Vote concerts
put on by MTV with the Democratic Party pre-checked.

If you don't generate new apathetic and uninformed voters who will do what Kim
K tells them to do; attrition will turn your once very predictable race into a
much more expensive coin toss.

------
joshdotsmith
I'm still pretty excited by what Vote.org is doing. Clearly something is
broken when our turnout is one of the lowest among the OECD. And if our
government – particularly state governments – won't fix even problems that are
low-hanging fruit, then fundamentally someone has to do something.

My main concern, though, is that we're going to continue to struggle to
justify the utility of voting to the average American who truly understands
how little their vote impacts policymaking. When 0% of average people support
a policy, the chance that it will become law is 31%. When 100% of people
support a policy? Also 31%. That's not a functioning democracy.

The fundamentals are very broken. We need to systematically identify how
people can wield influence over the political process en masse, and do so
without expecting the rules of the game to change. Voting – on its own – has
not appeared to be effective at this.

------
erentz
How ridiculous. The flaw in the election system is the lack of
proportionality, not lack of a mobile voting app. If people really want
everyone to vote then they need to first make sure every vote counts.

------
kahrkunne
Ah yes, if Soros-owned voting machines can't do the job, let's get the people
to vote using an insecure-by-design device

------
awt
Anyone on HN ever seriously questioned popular democracy? (genuinely curious)

~~~
douche
If you read the Federalist Papers and other writings of those who actually
hammered out the US Constitution, there are strong threads of distaste and
fear for the consequences of unfettered popular democracy. The mostly wealthy,
land-owning, businessmen and aristocrats who met in Philadelphia envisioned a
largely oligarchic, Roman-style Republic, not a Democracy of universal
suffrage, liable to succumb to the shifting winds of populism and demagoguery.
Only the House was to be directly elected; senators would be selected by their
respective state legislatures, not a direct plebiscite. Moreover, they mostly
restricted what limited voting rights there were, to white adult male property
owners, those with "skin in the game."

Largely, it was a slight modification to the British system that they were
already familiar with.

~~~
awt
I'm asking about you though, not the founders.

~~~
douche
I can't say I'm always thrilled with the results. Popular referendums seem to
be disastrous, as often as not. I'd probably say that the 17th Amendment was a
mistake. Dunbar's Number seems to be more true than false, and the layers of
indirection help to cut down the damage.

There's also the problem of fossilized borders and jurisdictions that no
longer reflect current realities. It'll never happen, but some realignment of
current state borders would probably be beneficial. There are the lurking
proposals to split California into multiple substates. The New York metro area
has more in common with its neighbors across state lines than with the people
in the hinterlands of their respective states. In my home state, we have one
small urban area that can effectively wag the dog of the rest of the state and
ramrod through any ill-conceived notion that catches its fancy, with terrible
consequences for the rest of the citizens living outside that bubble - on any
election, the returns are nearly mirror images of each other for that one
enclave versus the rest of the state.

------
sametmax
Yes, let add an new black box that will be easily manipulated by those in
charges. We don't have enough cheating and the system is already so fair, I
thing we need to spice things up.

------
sidlls
This just demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding at every level of how
the political system in the US works.

Our voting system is messed up, but that's a symptom of many deeper problems
(FPTP voting, closed vote counting, the mixing of parties with government and
others). These problems aren't going to be solved by any one effort. And most
definitely not by any SV backed one.

Also, anybody who thinks a text messaging campaign will result in meaningful
voter turnout improvement is so distant from understanding why turnout is so
low as to be dismissed out of hand.

~~~
manicdee
So why is voter turnout so low?

~~~
rgbrenner
I think voter turnout is low for 2 reasons:

1\. Tuesday voting. It's a work day. People have to work. They aren't going to
skip work (and maybe jeopardizing their food and shelter) just to go vote.

2\. They're angry and apathetic. People vote for change candidates and people
that promise to disrupt Washington. What does that tell you?

People don't like their choices. They feel like the candidates barely (if at
all) represent them or their interests. They disapprove of Congress and they
have little confidence in government (and have on both points for quite a
while).

So some of them decide to stay home instead.

For 1, we have mail-in ballots and early voting. And for 2, it really doesn't
matter how easy you make it to vote. That's not the problem.

~~~
douche
It's absurd that voting day isn't a national holiday.

~~~
jrockway
I'm not sure making it a national holiday helps. If you have a heart attack or
your house catches on fire, what do you do? Deal with it until Wednesday? No,
those people will be working.

In New York, your employer has to pay you for two hours to go vote.
[http://www.elections.ny.gov/nysboe/elections/attentionemploy...](http://www.elections.ny.gov/nysboe/elections/attentionemployees.pdf)

~~~
ewams
"Election Day" is now just the last day you can vote. "Early Voting" has been
available for the past 2 weeks in most places. Polls are open on the weekends.

~~~
rgbrenner
there are 13 states that don't permit it or require a valid excuse:

[https://ballotpedia.org/Early_voting](https://ballotpedia.org/Early_voting)

~~~
jrockway
Yeah, I'm jealous of my friends from other states that get to vote early.
Seems much less stressful to sit by your computer so you can Google whoever
you want before voting for them.

Sadly there seems to be zero information about judges on the ballot. Except
one guy in my district who was added to the ballot by mistake; he doesn't want
to be a judge, and isn't qualified. He was nominated accidentally because he
has the same name as a prominent lawyer, who also doesn't want to be a judge.

Worst form of government except for all the others...

~~~
rgbrenner
Judges are hard to vote on.. I usually can't find much on the internet on
them.

In Colorado, for the past 30-or-so years, there's a "State Commission on
Judicial Performance" and they review the judges and it's added to the voter
booklet. They put it online:
[http://www.coloradojudicialperformance.gov/review.cfm?year=2...](http://www.coloradojudicialperformance.gov/review.cfm?year=2016)

And an example of one of their reviews:
[http://www.coloradojudicialperformance.gov/retention.cfm?ret...](http://www.coloradojudicialperformance.gov/retention.cfm?ret=1095)

It's not perfect.. they recommend all of the judges be retained. No matter how
bad they are. So you have to ignore that, and read the review which seems more
informative (IMO at least).

~~~
gizmo686
There is a line of thought that says that judges should not be elected (which
most of the world follows), because being subject to election forces them to
make the popular decision, instead of the legally correct one.

In this light, there is very good reason to recommend that judges be retained;
as having judges be worried about retention causes real problems for our
judicial system.

~~~
jrockway
At least in my district (Brooklyn), the judges have 14 year terms, and I think
that is a good compromise between accountability to the electorate and freedom
from the flavor of the month. To get onto the appeals circuit (may be misusing
that term), they have to then be appointed by the governor. So I think this is
a fine system, if I actually knew who I was voting for.

------
helthanatos
I don't understand how using the internet to vote will fix the flawed voting
system. I think fixing fraud would probably be the best way to increase real
voting. There is continuously fraud going on. You see the voter registrations
for people that died years ago. You see the people at the polls voting more
than once. I'm not voting this election because I don't believe my vote
matters (and our candidate choices). People want to be heard, yet the
corruption continues. I don't believe simply making it easier to vote will
drastically increase voter turnout - real voters, that is.

~~~
bradleyankrom
Hasn't the notion of voter fraud been more or less debunked? [0][1]

[0] [https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/voter-
fraud](https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/voter-fraud) [1]
[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/20/opinion/the-success-of-
the...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/20/opinion/the-success-of-the-voter-
fraud-myth.html)

~~~
helthanatos
No.
[https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=/amp/ij...](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=/amp/ijr.com/2016/11/722025-14-cases-
of-voter-fraud-so-far-this-year-and-its-not-even-election-day-
yet/amp/&ved=0ahUKEwivtpOJn43QAhWm6oMKHUQ4CA4QiJQBCCwwAw&usg=AFQjCNFNCVPz6F68Cv11SRtcEH379-wxUg&sig2=83ApJJkjJU0tQJEyQYk2KA)
The amount of fake/dead voters registered and the number of recounts should
speak for itself. Should it not? You can also at historical election numbers
in which the people voting far outnumbered the inhabitants. You can also
logically think about the process of counting votes and realize that that is
an easy thing to mess with.

