
VotePlz – The Easiest Way to Vote - zachlatta
https://voteplz.org
======
woodhull
How is this ethical: YC funds Vote.org as part of YC S16. Vote.org is a voter
registration platform broadly similar to VotePlz, but with fewer emojis.

Sam Altman spends his summer advising vote.org in his role as a YC Partner.

Soon after demo day, Sam Altman decides to launch what amounts to a clone
knock off of vote.org. Paul Graham tweets about VotePlz at launch calling it
the most important thing to happen today, after never mentioning the YC funded
vote.org on his twitter all summer as far as I can tell.

Shouldn't YC be as friendly to not-for-profit startup founders as they claim
to be to for-profit founders?

I'm all for there being lots of voter-registration organizations. YC should
fund lots of startups in this space.

It seems though that the role that YC Partners play as trusted strategic
advisors is incompatible with those partners going on to start directly
competitive organizations, whatever their tax status might be.

~~~
sama
I am contributing to both vote.org and voteplz.org, and probably two other
get-out-the-vote non-profits. There are different approaches to this problem
and I'm not sure which will work best, but unlike many for-profit startups
it's non zero-sum--we have a long, long way to go to 100% voter turnout, and
all the organizations working on this share the same fundamental goal.

This feels like the most important US presidential election I've ever
witnessed, and I want to do whatever I can to make sure we're all involved.

~~~
sbuttgereit
Do we really want those that are so half-hearted about the process that they
need great efforts to cajole them to actually participating in our elections?
How much time and effort do you think someone that has to be given so many
"easy buttons" to become part of the process will dedicate to understanding
the issues, the candidates, and the possible future outcomes? I don't think
many.

I think voting should be open to anyone that wants to put some reasonable
effort into being part of the process. For example, maybe you should have to
go to your county clerk's office in person to register. Voting should be in
person. Yes, for those that are home-bound or have legitimate extenuating
circumstances, they should be allowed to vote or register by mail... but if
you're otherwise able and not willing to go to some reasonable effort to
participate, you likely aren't going to be the model of an "informed voter"
either.

The only reason I think politicians and activists go down this road to making
it easier to vote is because they want an electorate that doesn't think too
much nor care too much. They want a docile electorate more likely to rubber
stamp ideas than submit them to scrutiny. This is about undermining the
functioning of democratic systems, not expanding them.... or it's just ill
considered.

~~~
rhallie11
There are a wide variety of reasons as to why registering to vote should be as
easy as possible, and most of them have nothing to do with convincing people
who don't want to vote to vote (I mean, ideally, we should live in a society
that automatically registers everyone by default. But we're not quite there
yet).

People who work 9-5 jobs that are paid hourly (or people currently in school,
and go to school during those hours) literally lose money by taking time off
to go to a government building and do these things in person, since government
buildings operate 9-5 as well (some even open late/close early, because
government).

Currently, the people most-likely to vote are either old (retired, with the
free-time available to go do these things at their convenience), or middle-to-
upper class salary workers (who won't be penalized for taking time off to go
do these things).

While the people least-likely to vote are young people and people who work
lower to lower-middle class hourly jobs, who cannot afford to take time off to
register/vote. Most states don't even guarantee you paid time off to vote on
election days.

If people don't want/care to vote, no amount of simplifying is going to _make_
them do it. But people who want to vote shouldn't have _anything_ standing in
their way.

~~~
Semiapies
_But people who want to vote shouldn 't have anything standing in their way._

I agree in principle, but in practice for the white millennials this site
seems aimed at, there's not much _in_ their way. And then there's a whole
section of the page trying to convince people _to_ vote in the first place, to
vote for the down-ballot, etc.

In that context, sbuttgereit's question seems valid.

~~~
rhallie11
> for the white millennials this site seems aimed at, there's not much in
> their way

I don't know what about our product makes you think that we're specifically
targeting white people, but, even if we were, millennials (even ones from
populations that are disproportionately of a privileged background) are
overwhelmingly either currently in school, or under-employed . "Under-
employed," meaning that they tend to work part-time, hourly jobs, rather than
being able to secure salaried positions (even for ones with higher degrees).

As I've said before, they literally do not have time--and will, in fact, be
put at a financial burden, if they chose to--to take off time to vote. Which
is why we have services like "Time off to Vote"
([https://www.voteplz.org/guide/get-time-
off/](https://www.voteplz.org/guide/get-time-off/)) to help people know their
rights, as well as easy-to-understand information about getting absentee
ballots and voting early.

We also have an entire resource for helping people with criminal pasts know
their rights ([https://www.voteplz.org/register/#/felony-
help/](https://www.voteplz.org/register/#/felony-help/)), which pretty much no
one makes straight-forward. If you look at other registration sites, they tend
to say something along the lines of, "don't use us if you've ever committed a
crime," because they don't feel like putting in the effort to help that
demographic. Even the National Voter Registration form uses language that can
be misinterpreted as meaning that people who have been to jail automatically
lose their rights forever.

Like I said, making it easier for people to vote (and giving them resources to
get _informed_ ) is not _making_ people who don't want to vote, vote. It's
helping people who want to make a difference get the resources to make a
difference.

~~~
Semiapies
_don 't know what about our product makes you think that we're specifically
targeting white people, but, even if we were_

If you were, it would be terrible and racist, considering the much more
serious impediments people of racial minorities tend to have to vote. But I
wasn't saying that, just that it was very focused on them, presumably because
most or all of the people you have writing the copy _are_ white millennials,
and probably all men. Try to scrounge up some other people to look at the
site.

As for the impediments, again, if you're not lily-white, all those things go
double, with more barriers, besides. Meanwhile, I've been a white student and
under-employed in a recession while voting religiously, and it was never that
hard.

~~~
rhallie15
> presumably because most or all of the people you have writing the copy _are_
> white millennials, and probably men

Jokes on you--I'm black woman

~~~
Semiapies
_shrug_

Then, I guess you know who you're aiming the copy at.

------
alexbecker
I haven't seen a persuasive analysis of whether and how one should vote; most
analyses I've seen ignore the electoral college and all the issues it brings.
In brief:

My vote is statistically extremely unlikely to affect the outcome of the
election. This is counter-balanced by the extremely large impact affecting the
outcome would have. I'm inclined to believe that the two roughly cancel, so
that a (say) one-in-several-million chance of affecting the outcome is worth
the effort of voting. But I live in California, where my vote is roughly 100x
less likely than the average vote to affect the outcome (FiveThirtyEight has
done this analysis, though the precise number fluctuates and has considerable
uncertainty).

So then what are the effects of my vote? It nudges the statistics a little. It
increases turnout, which probably increases confidence in our democracy. It
increases turnout among 18-29 year-olds, probably increasing their political
clout and furthering causes they support. Do I agree with them on the whole,
or in particular on issues where their political clout is likely to tip the
scales? I don't know. Say I vote for Clinton, it also increases her popular
vote total. If she wins, it slightly improves her electoral mandate. If she
loses, it slightly deprives Trump's mandate. It also increases the chance that
Trump wins the election but loses the popular vote--a potentially very
unpleasant scenario.

How do I measure and balance these? How is a consequentialist to vote?

~~~
specialist
The presidential race is the least important item on your ballot.

Progressives like me argue that voting for local races and issues, the things
that effect you directly, is for more important.

The function of the presidential races is to increase turnout and
participation for all that down ballot stuff.

~~~
enraged_camel
I'm a progressive and I totally disagree with your line of reasoning.

The next POTUS will nominate a Supreme Court judge. That is far, far more
important than any local issue because Supreme Court decisions have MAJOR
impact for the entire country and they supersede any lower-court decisions and
invalidate all conflicting laws.

When the Supreme Court says that separating black and white students in public
schools is unconstitutional ( _Brown vs. Board of Education, 1954_ ), it
affects you directly.

When the Supreme Court says women have a constitutional right to abortion (
_Roe v. Wade, 1973_ ), it affects you directly if you're a woman and/or have
had your partner need/want to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

When the Supreme Court says corporations and unions can spend unlimited
amounts of money in elections ( _Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission, 2010_ ), it affects you directly.

Sure, local politicians may affect more day-to-day life matters, but in the
grand scheme of things, those don't matter too much. I mean, if you think the
amount of budget allocated to the local school system is too little, move to
another city/state with a better-funded school system. Not super easy to do,
but moving to another country however is considerably more difficult.

~~~
sidlls
This is among the least important reasons to vote on the POTUS. Most SCOTUS
cases are actually far more narrow in scope and impact than the ones you
described. Aside from that, in this particular election there is no good
reason to favor either major party candidate with respect to SCOTUS, if one's
agenda is a progressive one. So the motivation to GOTV for them based on
SCOTUS is isn't necessarily there.

~~~
sksnxjis
Trump provided a list of conservative legal figures he might nominate -
whether or not Clinton's choices would be ideal, progressives should find them
better than Trump's.

To give a concrete example, the current deadlock has stopped Obama's deferred
action immigration program, affecting the status of millions of immigrants. It
seems likely a Clinton appointee would flip that result, while a Trump
appointee would not.

~~~
sidlls
On the other hand Hillary seems to be keen on augmenting the government's
spying activities, criminal enforcement, and foreign aggression. There is no
good reason to think that Clinton's nominees will in aggregate be better.

------
ptomato
"Some information on our supporter lists, such as names, email addresses, and
addresses, may be exchanged with named partners and other organizations with
principles and/or missions that overlap with those of VotePlz." — "We'll make
sure people spam you with political bullshit to the end of time if you're dumb
enough to give us your personal info."

Of course, on the signup form, they say "We'll never sell your data or spam
you" and then point you to the privacy policy which says that.

~~~
ebildsten
Thanks for the feedback! We've updated the privacy policy to remove this
section to reflect that we won't do this.

------
kr7
Is this really necessary?

[https://www.instagram.com/p/BKGdQ42haF1/](https://www.instagram.com/p/BKGdQ42haF1/)

EDIT: Mirror: [https://i.sli.mg/MsUWXx.jpg](https://i.sli.mg/MsUWXx.jpg)

~~~
odbol_
Considering that old people are more likely to vote for Trump or Hillary, yes
it is. CNN doesn't even include ages 18-34 on their polls anymore because
those people are trying to vote for actual sane 3rd party candidates.

~~~
strictnein
If only there were some of those on the ballet...

~~~
Spivak
I would love to see Jill in a performance of Swan Lake.

Since I've been following his campaign, I know for sure that Gary Johnson is
on the ballot in all 50 states and apparently Jill Stein is 42 states
according to her website.

------
32bitkid
i _really_ wish that "No Vote" was a valid/acceptable option, and there were
ramifications if "No Vote" got the majority support. I just don't buy into the
"you are obligated to vote" choir, or see any value in the "vote against
somebody else" vote.

~~~
bargl
I kinda feel like that is Gary Johnson... I mean I personally agree with a lot
of what he says, but most people consider it a throw away vote. For me it's a
vote that says, even though I do think one candidate is less bad than another.
I strongly dislike Trump/Clinton. Please come back with better options next
year.

Also I'd love it if he would win, but I'm a realist mostly I'm just telling
both parties they miss my vote.

~~~
jhugg
I’m sympathetic, but as someone who remembers the 2000 election and how it was
clearly altered by a third party candidate, with actual serious ramifications
(war, etc…), I can’t support this view (at least not in a state that might
matter).

If you don’t vote for a plausible candidate, then you lose the right to
complain when you don’t like what happens. "I didn’t vote for him/her”, isn’t
a valid excuse unless you voted against him/her.

I recognize this is a dissapointing and compromised viewpoint, but there are
literally lives on the line.

~~~
Klathmon
I can't do that. I can't vote for someone that I feel is a terrible choice
that will have serious ramifications without actually believing in them. I
won't send the message that I want a candidate unless I actually want them.

I'm not voting against a candidate, i'm voting for one. And if there is nobody
that represents me, i'm not going to vote. I'm not going to show approval for
one of the candidates that I don't actually support, and i'm not going to feel
like it's "my fault" when one of them wins.

~~~
jhugg
Hypothetical: Candidate A is a genuine sociopath and serial killer. Candidate
B was indicted for tax-fraud, but got off for BS reasons. Candidate C runs a
non-profit and loves kittens, but has no chance in hell of winning.

I don't want to vote for A or B. I want to vote for C. But if by not voting
for B, A gets elected, that's partly on me.

This isn't our exact situation, but if you genuinely believe one plausible
candidate is better than the other (even if still bad) and you vote 3rd party,
then you're wasting your vote.

Whether Gary Johnson gets 5% or 12% of the vote isn't going to fix the two
party system. If you want to do that, you need to start at the local and state
levels. Just running a candidate for president every four years is for
publicity and messaging, not because you're ever going to win.

~~~
Klathmon
I don't see it that way. It's not on me that 5X% of the people who voted voted
for the serial killer. That's on them. If that is who the population wants,
then that is what they will get.

My vote is the voice I get in democracy. I'm not going to use it to vote in
someone I don't agree with on most issues, just because the other guy is
worse. Me withholding that voice (or using it to vote for someone I know won't
win, but who i genuinely believe in) is the way that I can be heard. It's my
way of telling future politicians that if they support X (or something close
to X) that they can get a portion of those who voted for C last election.

It's my way of sending a message that the next candidate shouldn't be a serial
killer AND shouldn't be involved in tax fraud. It's my call for someone who
better represents me and my beliefs.

~~~
jhugg
As I said earlier, in 2000 people voted for Nader and its a pretty direct path
to a trillion dollar war that cost thousands of American lives, cost hundreds
of thousands of non-American lives, and led semi-directly to ISIS.

I don't blame Nader voters, because they didn't realize what could happen.
Voters in 2016 have no such excuse.

~~~
lhc-
Why can't we blame the democratic candidate, who was so unappealing to
progressive voters that they preferred Nader? I would suggest it is the fault
of that candidate (and his party) that they lost the election. No one is
entitled to anyone else's votes, regardless of how bad the competition is.
Voters have agency, and have no compulsion to vote for one specific candidate
to avoid another evil one (that specific candidate still must earn those
votes).

~~~
NoGravitas
Yep. It's a myth that Nader lost Gore the election. In Florida, 10x as many
registered Democrats voted for _Bush_ as voted for Nader.

The main argument for voting _for_ a guaranteed-to-lose third-party candidate
is that it gives the parties a clear, quantitative signal about how many
voters their base-unfriendly policies are losing them.

And also the down-ticket races, of course, though many of them are so
gerrymandered here that your votes don't matter in them, either.

~~~
jhugg
> Yep. It's a myth that Nader lost Gore the election. In Florida, 10x as many
> registered Democrats voted for Bush as voted for Nader.

This isn't a counter-argument. Yes, there are innumerable ways Gore could have
gotten the handful of votes needed to push him over the top in Florida.

But it's difficult to argue that, if Nader voters voted for their second
choice instead, Gore wouldn't have gotten enough votes to win. To argue
otherwise is to argue that a majority of Nader voters would have picked Bush
as a second pick, and that's difficult to imagine.

------
minimaxir
NB: VotePlz is partially funded by YC president Sam Altman, although I am not
sure if it is a part of YC (see interview w/ cofounders + Altman:
[https://www.buzzfeed.com/nitashatiku/voteplz-silicon-
valley-...](https://www.buzzfeed.com/nitashatiku/voteplz-silicon-valley-
millennial-voters))

~~~
jjawssd
Who is funding VotePlz

~~~
MichaelApproved
And how do they plan on earning money?

~~~
adocracy
Not everything is about earning money. Sometimes it's (hopefully) about
empowering more direct democracy.

~~~
jjawssd
You are too idealistic.

Power and influence is ultimately traded as a commodity with the use of money.
Other methods are not generalizable.

------
gavinpc
Freedom is not a done deal. Not in America, not anywhere.

The founders did not give us freedom. They gave us a _process_ for slowing the
inevitable erosion of freedom.

This is that process.

There's a lot of talk here about whether higher turnout is a worthy goal, if
that means expending energy to overcome the apathy, indifference, or jadedness
of people who are thus unlikely to be astute, well-informed, or community-
minded.

I say that high turnout is a good in its own right. Turnout itself—for
whatever result—is an antiseptic to corruption. Low turnout is a bellwether
for how much people in power can get away with. Local beat reporters are
leaving journalism as the newspapers fold. Who's minding the shop? We are.

It's not just about results, it's about culture. If we are indifferent to the
indifference of others, we pass a weaker democracy to the next generation.

------
Fej
Is it wrong that I instantly think less of a website when I see gratuitous,
unnecessary emoji?

~~~
minimaxir
Per the BuzzFeed interview, the website is explicitly targeting millennials.

~~~
Fej
As a millennial, I find it childish and saccharine. Makes the site look
unprofessional, like it's trying to be "hip like you youngsters!"

~~~
iLoch
From one millennial to another: you're in the minority. This type of shit
works on our peers. (Well maybe not _our_ peers, but you know what I'm
saying.) Most people our age get their news from Facebook and BuzzFeed.

------
adocracy
Voting should be the single required act to trigger your Universal Basic
Income for the year.

~~~
metaphorm
and what if there are no candidates you feel good about voting for?

~~~
nxzero
Really wish the definition of democracy included by default the right to vote
that you object strongly enough to significant options not to vote for any of
them.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Really wish the definition of democracy included by default the right to
> vote that you object strongly enough to significant options not to vote for
> any of them.

It does. Even with places with mandatory voting, you usually are only required
to turn in a ballot paper, it can still not actually vote for any of the
options.

Of course, that's just ceding your involvement in the choice (as it should be
-- you are, in effect, voting no preference between the available options.)

~~~
metaphorm
there's a very large difference between "no preference" and "I find all the
options unacceptable".

~~~
dragonwriter
"I find all the options _equally_ unacceptable" is exactly the same as "No
preference".

Usual election systems already support the case where you find the options
_unequally_ unacceptable.

~~~
metaphorm
"equally unacceptable" is not what "no preference" means. i'm astonished
you're trying to argue these are equivalent.

"differently unacceptable" is also a terrible situation though! this is the
entire point of my argument. I may find some candidates more bad than others.
being forced to vote for less bad is still being disenfranchised to a
significant extent.

~~~
dragonwriter
No, having the opportunity to vote for less bad is being enfranchised. The
franchise is an entitlement for to have an option you like provided for you by
someone else, not is it an entitlement to have your most preferred option be
successful through the filtering that happens in the political process you are
entitled to participate in before the stage of a general election ballot is
reached.

FPTP is a bad system of aggregating preferences where there are more than two
options in principle, and produces bad effects in the filtering (and voting)
process because people adjust for the bad way that it aggregates preferences.
And there are lots of sensible, obvious, and proven ways to make that better.
But none of them guarantee you a situation where you aren't forced either to
not vote it to vote for a less-bad alternative (though ranked ballots methods
move some of the filtering process into the general election, down-ballot
votes are still votes.)

~~~
metaphorm
the voting franchise is a fundamental right of citizens in a democracy. the
fact that you're referring to it as an entitlement is misinformed, and in
fact, quite warped and reveals a deep misunderstanding of our form of
government.

the state we find ourselves in this year is abundant evidence of the terrible
malfunctioning of the American political process. the system we have in place
now struggles to reach even the basic requirements of legitimacy and consent
of the governed.

what does popular sovereignty mean anyway if large majorities of the populous
are very very very unhappy with their government?

------
rattray
I don't see any indication as to which jurisdiction(s)/election(s) this
pertains to. Is it USA-only? USA-federal-election-only?

These may be "stupid" questions, and the answers may be buried somewhere, but
I'd imagine it would make sense to have this information on the home page.

~~~
rhallie15
It is currently US only! But registration is good for any US election
(state/local/federal).

------
kawfey
I put in my address, which resulted in a popup saying "Uh oh! Looks like
something went wrong with our codez..."

The rotating status icon beneath the address box proceeded to change the
dimensions of the page, making an interesting cyclic pattern of lengthening
and shortening my scroll bars.

Interesting.

~~~
zachlatta
Actively deploying a fix!

------
patrickg_zill
I would like Sam Altman to publicly make a statement about his attendance at
the Bilderberg Conference.

Was the USA presidential election discussed at this conference, in any
discussions of which he was a part?

~~~
foobarqux
Bilderberg participants agree not to publicly discuss the content of the
meetings.

~~~
patrickg_zill
I didn't ask for that... besides, he is answering other questions in this
thread and can address the question however he wants.

------
NoGravitas
What a terribly designed website. I opened it with an ad blocker running, and
it's continuously redrawing itself, and the validation error boxes are
displayed with {{vm.errors.blahblah}} in them. I can understand things not
working right if some resources don't get loaded, but this is an incredibly
ungraceful way to fail.

~~~
a3_nm
On the other hand, the site managed to tell me in a sensible way to enable
Javascript (blocked with Noscript), instead of failing incomprehensibly like
most websites do. So this is one good point for them, I'd say!

------
birdmanjeremy
Neither voteplz or vote.org show me as registered, but ocvote.com does. Seems
like the main thing these sites are designed to do doesn't work, unless they
are actually designed to collect and sell emails...

------
okreallywtf
Odd, I'm not sure if this is intentional but after the "check if you are
registered" step it wants me to register, despite the fact that my
registration is active (I can look it up for NC and I've voted in 2 primaries
in the last 6 months without moving). This is either a mistake or an odd
choice when people are already registered.

I wanted to see what the process looked like so I could share it on my FB
because I think its a great tool (even if there are others like it).

------
h4nkoslo
Why would we want more people voting, especially if they couldn't previously
be bothered to absent a significant amount of prodding?

~~~
rhallie11
Making it simpler for people to vote isn't prodding. "You can lead a horse to
water, but you can't make it drink."

~~~
h4nkoslo
You can create a propaganda campaign about how delightful voting is and all
the cool kids are doing it, here's some dank memes, and by the way if you
don't you're letting your country down. Like this one.

[https://www.voteplz.org/why/](https://www.voteplz.org/why/)

My first question remains. Why is more people voting a good thing?

------
b0p1x
No mention of what city/state/country it is even applicable to. A star is
pretty generic to think that means USA by itself.

~~~
adocracy
Looks like it's a county-by-county lookup function, crossed with state voting
laws. We're building something county-by-county too - difficult locality
matching issues.

~~~
cauterized
Note that in some places, county isn't very useful for anything voting-
related, and completely useless for down-ballot. Here in NYC, each county
contains dozens upon dozens of polling places. And then each of the US House,
state senate, state representatives, and city council have oodles of their own
non-matching districts that don't match 1-1 with polling places either.

Getting any useful information about down-ballot races when there are
thousands of separate races in a single media market is essentially
impossible. And that goes doubly for the primaries, which are really the only
races that make a difference here.

------
HelloMcFly
Observation: this site incorrectly identified me as not registered to vote. I
verified my status on my county website.

~~~
rhallie11
Hey there! Could you send more deets to support@voteplz.org ?

There are a number of reason why this could have failed on our end that users
have run into in the past: anything from maybe entering your name incorrectly
(people who type in "Alex" instead of "Alexander"), using the wrong address
(if you recently moved, but registered at an old address), all the way to our
DB being not quite up-to-date due to you having registered very recently.

Not saying its impossible for it to have been an "us" problem, but there are a
lot of moving parts at play. There's also no real downside to registering
twice (other than the loss of a couple minutes). Better to be safe than sorry

~~~
HelloMcFly
I sent an email as requested.

~~~
rhallie11
Woop!

------
LukeShu
How does the registration work with weird state requirements? For instance,
Indiana requires a "wet" signature, unless through the specially-exempted
indianavoters.in.gov form.

I tried to go through both voteplz.org and vote.org to see if it would end up
directing me to indianavoters.in.gov, but:

When I entered my address, VotePlz told me "Uh oh! Looks like something went
wrong with our codez." (in a pop-up over a message telling me that it wasn't a
valid residential address).

When I hit "continue" after entering my basic information, vote.org told me
"The change you wanted was rejected. Maybe you tried to change something you
didn't have access to."

~~~
zachlatta
Ah! Sorry about the errors, we're actively fixing them and scaling up.

We mail you a pre-filled and pre-addressed registration form with return
postage already on it. All you have to do is sign the form and drop it back
into the mail to get registered.

When we first started, our initial goal was to actually only focus on states
that require things like wet signatures because we didn't see too many options
that made it dead simple.

------
okonomiyaki3000
Even if you say "plz", I'm not voting. Not because voting isn't easy enough
but because there's not a candidate that I can vote for.

------
ph0rque
My address came into existence ~2 years ago. I'm still having trouble with
address lookups validating my address as valid, including in this case.

~~~
zachlatta
Yeah, that's unfortunately a result of the proprietary database we had to
license :-/.

We started out by writing scrapers to do the checks to avoid these sorts of
problems, but they ended up being way more trouble than they were worth.

Did you know that New Jersey's voter registration portal has business hours
and that California does voter registration on a per-county basis? That means
the best case scenario is writing and maintaining 58 individual scrapers just
for California, if you don't count the counties where you can only check by
calling in.

Sorry we couldn't come up with a better solution to fit your needs :-(.

~~~
adocracy
it's a tough problem. we're using the county-by-district database at US Census
for our localization. [https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-
data/data/kml/kml_couwithinc...](https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-
data/data/kml/kml_couwithincd.html) but we're not doing specific legal
requirements matching, which is wayyy tougher.

------
nebula
This is probably a risky question to ask here, but let me ask it anyway: looks
like most/all YC partners are rallying behind a particular candidate. Would
this VotePlz effort try to help their favorite candidate in an indirect way?
On the face of it, it doesn't seem like, but I would be skeptical given how
partisan Paul Graham's political tweets had been.

------
SVisourGod
I'm kinda shocked that a few dudes got funded money for this site. I guess
having a dick means that other people with dicks will just write a check
without any actual proof of doing good work. Can we ban SV from politics?

------
jqgatsby
This site is unusable on mobile for me (I'm on chrome/android) because the
birthdate selector requires me to wind the calendar selector to 30+ years
month-by-month (so 360+ swipes to register my birthdate). Anyone else run into
this?

------
chatmasta
I'm out of the country and will still be out of the country on November 8th.
I'd like to fill out an absentee ballot for Maine. Is voteplz able to mail all
the requisite forms to me internationally?

------
sandGorgon
is the source code for this (and the other voting non-profits) opensource ? I
ask because this could be deployed in some form to mobilize the world's
largest democratic exercise in India.

The last general elections in India had more people voting than the last 6 US
presidential elections _combined_ (which included some interesting modes
including elephants, camels and canoe).

However, the urban voter turnout is still low. I wonder if something like this
can be used to mobilize them,

------
SVisourGod
The dudes here also steal the language of TurboVote. I guess the capitalists
at YC get to steal from women bc SV are our gods.

------
bonoboTP
Is it so difficult to vote in the US?

~~~
h4nkoslo
No, it's not. You register to vote a bit before the election. You show up to
your local precinct, or request a mail-in ballot. You _might_ have to show the
same ID you're required to have for any other institution interaction,
depending on your state. Done.

You're able to register to vote whenever you change the address on your state
ID or car registration. In many states you can register at the polling station
on voting day. You usually also get mailers prompting you to vote, volunteers
asking you in person, etc.

~~~
int_19h
This isn't the whole picture. In some states, there's a proof of citizenship
requirement in order to register to vote, and the most common form of photo ID
(driver's license) is not sufficient for that purpose in most cases, because
non-citizens can also hold it.

Problem is, for many people, they don't actually have any documentation to
that effect. The most typical documents are passports and birth certificates.
The former aren't free, and are otherwise only really useful when travelling
in other countries, so there's little incentive to have one. The latter are
often not available on hand, and you have to go to a completely different
place (from where you register) to obtain yours; worse yet if you were born in
a different state. It's usually not free, either.

[http://www.demos.org/publication/how-do-proof-citizenship-
la...](http://www.demos.org/publication/how-do-proof-citizenship-laws-block-
legitimate-voters)

~~~
h4nkoslo
These "many people" must not be able to sustain employment either, since proof
of eligibility to work (citizenship, or a visa that allows employment but
wouldn't allow voting) is a requirement for any job.

Somehow, outrage over this situation only surfaces when it's time to send as
much of a low-agency population as possible to the polls.

~~~
int_19h
Proof of eligibility to work is one's Social Security card, normally. You
don't need a birth certificate for that. Now, if you want to make the Social
Security card a valid ID for the purposes of voting...

Somehow, the outrage about voter identity fraud - which empirically is so low
that reported cases are in double digits across the entire country - is when
it's election time, and politicians of a certain bent suddenly find out that
poor and non-white people, for some mysterious reason, don't really support to
cut top income bracket taxes even further.

------
riffic
well it's certainly a bit more enticing than efforts such as "Rock the Vote"
or "Vote or Die"

