Tell HN: Vote.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=352800

by speek • 18 years ago

184 289 18 years ago

news.ycombinator.com

If you can, vote. It is your duty as an American to speak for yourself. We have the power to change things, we have the power to make the world a better place.

Just vote.

debt6• 18 years ago

Don't just vote; vote Obama.

speek2• 18 years ago

What about Nader, McKinney, etc?

noodle6• 18 years ago

Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're nothing but hideous space reptiles.

[unmasks them] [audience gasps in terror]

Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.

[murmurs]

Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.

Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.

Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.

[Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]

[Ross Perot smashes his "Perot 96" hat]

viggity12• 18 years ago

I really don't understand the Obama-ness of HN. I'm certainly not busting my ass working on my business just to see Obama "spread my wealth around".

I understand the realities of having a progressive tax system, but Obama crosses a line with me when he is going to tax the rich just to hand it straight over to everyone else in $1000 cash increments. At least in the past the Democrats wanted to buy the poor $1000 in fishing equipment instead of handing out $1000 worth of fish. His plan is the very definition of Marxism.

viggity12• 18 years ago

FYI I'm fine with someone disagreeing and down voting my comment, but I would appreciate some sort of response if you do. I'd like to know why you think I'm wrong

prospero2• 18 years ago

Marx believed that the government should distribute goods, not money. Don't be silly.

sc2• 18 years ago

"[39.6 per cent] is what it would be under Obama's proposal, what it was under President Clinton, and, for that matter, what it will be after 2010 if President Bush's tax cuts expire on schedule."

"During the 2000 campaign, on MSNBC's 'Hardball,' a young woman asked [McCain] why her father, a doctor, should be 'penalized' by being 'in a huge tax bracket.' McCain replied that 'wealthy people can afford more' and that 'the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don't pay nearly as much as you think they do.' The exchange continued:

YOUNG WOMAN: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?...

MCCAIN: Here's what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more"

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/03/081103taco_...

debt6• 18 years ago

The upper class can go without a few luxuries so that the lower class can actually afford necessities. Don't be such a selfish pussy.

noodle6• 18 years ago

here are a few points worth considering:

all tax systems are "spreading the wealth around" unless they're a flat tax system.

obama is proposing a top tax bracket of 39.6%. under the "conservative lord and savior" ronald reagan, the top tax bracket paid 70%. that was eventually lowered to 50%.

sarah palin presides over a state that siphons money from oil companies and uses it to cut checks to their citizens. this year's check was, iirc, for $3200. in addition, alaska is #1 in the country for pork barrel spending, leading the #2 state (arizona, [un?]ironically) by approx. 2500%.

on the y2k campaign, john mccain, when asked about why the questioner's father (a doctor) pays a higher percentage in taxes than others, said this : "Look, here's what I really believe: That when you are, when you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more."

almost every person in the top 10 richest americans (not all were asked) stated that the current tax system unfairly favors the top. that includes warren buffet and bill gates.

petercooper2• 18 years ago

Can I have a citation for your claim that Obama will directly give cash to the poor based on extra taxes raised on the rich?

gruseom• 18 years ago

His plan is the very definition of Marxism

His plan is to seize the means of production and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat? Can we get a citation on that?

auston• 18 years ago

"spread my wealth around"

Like with his proposal for 0% Capital Gains tax for Start-ups and Small Businesses? Man he's killin' you AND me with that one.

time_management2• 18 years ago

Although I was a trader at a hedge fund for just over a year, I'm not rich. I probably will be, in the future. The Republican argument is that liberal economics are worst not for the already rich, but for the middle-class people who are trying to get rich. Well, I'm one of those: middle-class background, likely to be wealthy one day on account of my talent and work ethic. I'm also liberal, and will vote for Obama tomorrow, and although I suspect he's center-left, I secretly hope he is somewhat of the socialist his detractors accuse him of being.

Why? I want a fair society, and a stable one. I don't want high levels of crime and unreliable health coverage. Nor do I want to feel guilty about enjoying my relative level of privilege. I don't want to be destroyed in the off chance that I'm unable to work due to illness or injury. I definitely don't want to see a violent revolution (much more probable than anyone wants to admit; given 20 more years of the 1980-2009(?) neofeudalism, I'd lay even odds on that one).

Frankly, whether the upper tax bracket is 35 or 39.6 percent is of little interest to me, given the much larger issues at stake. I'll gladly pay a few more percent in taxes, contingent upon positive fortune on my part, in order to live in a better, fairer, and safer society.

Also, here's why redistributive taxation fundamentally makes sense. Poor and middle-class people, in general, spend the bulk of their income on commodities-- food, clothing, consumer goods-- whose prices are set by material supply and demand. Doubling the incomes of the poor is going to enable them to purchase more of these commodities. The growth factor isn't 100%, since there will also be an increase the prices of these commodities (inflation) but it's fairly close-- no worse than 50%, I'd bet. So the poor peoples' standards of living increase if their incomes are doubled. Likewise, a 50% reduction in income will destroy many of them.

On the other hand, wealthy people tend to purchase status goods, such as jewelry, rare (usually shitty, but that's beside the point) art, and trophy real estate. If the wealthy are suddenly made twice as rich, the prices of all the Manhattan apartments and paint-factory-vomit "modern art" works would instantly double. The same would be true if their income were halved. As long as these individuals' relative rankings were unchanged, their standards of living would change only slightly. One exception might be for those who wish to purchase a rivate jet, since a major expenditure in that pursuit is oil, a commodity. So private jets might become less affordable. Boo-hoo. The truth is that you could increase the tax rates on the very rich ($2.5 million+ per year) to 80 percent and, although they would feel intense pain due to the numerical changes and perceived loss of status, their lifestyles wouldn't change substantially, due to price reductions for most of the things they care about.

lutorm4• 18 years ago

Maybe you should look at the Colbert segment where he interviews the real Socialist candidate, ie the presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America, and see if he thinks Obama's plan is socialist.

jackowayed• 18 years ago

Also, if you can, try to vote in the middle of the day to both alleviate and avoid long lines. They say 9am-3pm is the least-busy time.

DanielBMarkham8• 18 years ago

Voting is one of the few things the system asks you do to around here. So get off you arses and vote!

My son is a ardent Democrat. My wife a Republican. Each year, she stops by and picks him up on the way to the polls.

The act of voting should be important on a personal level that transcends statistics or apathy. It's a common duty and celebration of our right of choice.

nazgulnarsil2• 18 years ago

if their votes cancel each other out why bother?

DanielBMarkham8• 18 years ago

Because voting is about a lot more than counting votes.

That's the point. We aren't in some struggle against the evil other guys (republicans, democrats) that are out to ruin our country. That's partisan election-year bullshit. Instead we are intelligent people who have honest differences. We're in this thing together a lot more than we're in this thing to exert our will over other citizens. Voting is being part of the system.

Not only that, but voting is a re-affirmation that we can vote. We can choose. Making good choices is important even if you're in the minority.

It's symbolic, but that's not the nature of my argument. It's required. Even if their votes cancel each other out, it's required that they take the time to make the best decisions they can and to exercise their right of choice. Like I said, it's one of the few things that's expected of us lunkheads.

enomar4• 18 years ago

Local elections and propositions? Belonging to different parties doesn't mean their ballots will be exact polar opposites.

noonespecial• 18 years ago

Because it showed that 2 people actually cared. It doesn't matter who wins, as long as they know that people care it changes how they do things.

iamdave• 18 years ago

Voting is one of the few things the system asks you do to around here.

Says it all.

alecco• 18 years ago

Back where I'm from it is mandatory for every able citizen to vote.

Shamiq2• 18 years ago

Throwing this out there: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/magazine/06freak.html?page...

apmee• 18 years ago

Fascinating it is, but there's already been a post on it today. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=352540

Shamiq2• 18 years ago

Yea, I couldn't find the link fast enough. Thanks.

Anyway, I think it belongs in the flow of this discussion as well.

mynameishere3• 18 years ago

We live in interesting times.

(1/2 of the possible results of an ancient Chinese curse. I think.)

We all know that voting is statistically meaningless--in fact, even if the vote comes down 50.0 million to 50.0 million, the actual result will be decided by whoever has the better lawyer in the inevitable supreme court spectacle.

So really, the only value is in the psychological effect voting has on yourself. Libertarians sometimes say "Don't vote" for this very reason, because voting makes you a participant in a corrupt system. (It's a standard brainwashing tactic to get people to say things they don't believe. Even if they know they don't believe, the honorable sense of "keeping one's word" overwhelms reason.)

Therefore, 3rd party votes are completely legitimate, since elections are pyschologically valid and mathematically pointless.

jncraton2• 18 years ago

Voting is not statistically meaningless. Voting gives us a good way to judge where the majority of the nation wants to go. Just because your vote doesn't decide the election does not mean that your vote is meaningless. It carries the same weight as mine, McCain's, or Obama's. This is a good thing.

mynameishere3• 18 years ago

Yeah, it is. Math is funny that way. In fact, it is probably a net-negative activity to drive across town to purchase a lottery ticket for 0 (zero) dollars that has a 100 million dollar payoff at 1:100,000,000 odds. Why? Because the time/energy expenditure of driving across town itself is a cost in excess of the likely returns. Voting is the same way, except you get somewhat less than 100M if you win.

And, if there's confusion, I'm talking about individuals voting, not groups. This is why sending large checks to favored candidates is not meaningless. It can sway many people, ultimately.

axod5• 18 years ago

Yeah I'm not sure the last 2 elections actually went with the popular vote. Was voting in the last 2 elections worthwhile? I'm not convinced.

IsaacSchlueter4• 18 years ago

That's why I wrote in a vote for the Ron Paul/Hypnotoad ticket.

msg2• 18 years ago

Isn't this a bit like saying the kinetic theory of gases is statistically meaningless? Even if the motion of individual gas molecules is pretty random, we can measure and learn something about the direction and speed of the gas as a whole that is not random at all.

If Obama, for instance, wins 330-208 in the electoral vote and 52-44 in the popular vote, we can hardly call those statistically insignificant margins below the noise floor.

mstefff4• 18 years ago

Find me one candidate that isn't completely full of s&%t, and maybe I'll cast a vote. Maybe one person that understands English enough to actually answer a question in front of a camera. It's insulting.

90% of the population doesn't have a single clue about how the government runs, anything about the economy, foreign relations, what any of the candidates are even speaking about. It's a population voting blindly based on which TV shows and commercials they happen to watch. We have states that practically automatically turn towards a certain party each time. An electoral college system makes all of the difference. Overfunded campaigns that buy your vote like big companies sell you their garbage. It's a mess..

johns3• 18 years ago

So don't vote for a major party or write someone in. If you don't vote, don't complain.

mstefff4• 18 years ago

Yea, that makes sense. Not too good at math?

aquateen4• 18 years ago

Would you like to get shot in the head, or stabbed in the back?

This is what I think of when I hear "don't vote, don't complain."

Prrometheus6• 18 years ago

If you vote for someone that fucks you over, THEN you can't complain. After all, you voted for him.

Non-voters have every right to complain.

enomar4• 18 years ago

So get off your ass and participate. If you're so smart help 4 or 5 people understand the issues. Encourage your friends and family to read, learn and think about the issues before voting. Don't just throw up your hands and say the system is broken; help fix it!

mstefff4• 18 years ago

1) I'm not that smart politically - at least I can admit it. 2) Did you only read one sentence in my post before commenting?

psyklic• 18 years ago

The best part about the elections is that voters GET an education about the issues by hearing the candidates. The education may be biased or somewhat untruthful, but elections actually let everyone know about the issues facing the country. I say that they make the populace much more informed!

jobeirne4• 18 years ago

Ahem, Bob Barr.

Brushfire5• 18 years ago

If only he didnt have that silly mustache. He looks like a pedophile.

Oh well... I just voted for him anyways :)

shard• 18 years ago

His name is Michael Badarnik, and unfortunately he was the Libertarian presidential candidate in 2004. I watched a 8 hour lecture he gave on the legal aspects of the constitution. How many candidates can claim to be able to do that?

blackguardx• 18 years ago

It's not just about the presidential election. Perhaps the greatest impact a voter has is on his local community/state. Here in California, our referendums have far-reaching consequences. Too much emphasis is placed on the presidential election.

mstefff4• 18 years ago

+ idiots who think their campaign 'promises' we all be passed and implemented by Nov. 5th

mhartl3• 18 years ago

Vote if it makes you feel good---whether out of a sense of participation, obligation, or duty. But don't kid yourself that you're "making a difference". The probability that your vote makes any difference is negligible. And please don't give people who don't vote a hard time; theirs is arguably the more rational choice, so there's no need to be self-righteous about it. (I am voting, BTW, but mainly to have an answer to the question "Who did you vote for?" I have to admit that feels a little cowardly.)

johns3• 18 years ago

The odds are your vote won't make a difference. But there's a chance, however remote, that it might make a huge difference. That's reason enough for me.

Prrometheus6• 18 years ago

Do you by any chance play the lottery?

mechanical_fish• 18 years ago

The probability that your vote makes any difference is negligible.

On the contrary: On any given issue, my vote cancels out a vote on the other side. That's a pretty important role. Without my vote, my side's excess votes would fail to carry the day.

The only way to have one's vote fail to "make a difference" is by finding someone who votes exactly opposite to you on every issue and making a pact with them not to vote. But you have to make sure they don't sneak off and vote when you're not looking. All in all, it's a lot easier to just cast a ballot.

DEinspanjer• 18 years ago

Sure, if you are a member of the two parties that make up the US political system.

If you are not a member of those two parties, your vote holds no worth within the political system. The two major parties normally dismiss or deride issues made by the green or libertarian parties. In some cases, it is possible that my vote outside the two party system can cause the person I least prefer to be elected. Yay!

Until the US abolishes the electoral college and institutes a more representative election system such as an approval or preferential system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting), I will continue to be dissatisfied with voting for the president.

mhartl3• 18 years ago

The probability that your vote makes any difference is negligible.

On any given issue, my vote cancels out a vote on the other side.

There is no conflict between these two statements, but only one is relevant to a rational decision to vote. "Canceling" a vote is irrelevant unless the margin of victory is ~1 vote. When there are ~10^6-10^7 voters in a typical state, the probability that this is the case is, alas, << 1.

IsaacSchlueter4• 18 years ago

In most cases, your vote is meaningless. The common duty and celebration of whatever is kind of BS. You're better off convincing someone who would have voted differently not to vote at all. Instead, the two of you can celebrate your rights with beers, which is way more enjoyable, and has the same effect on policy.

If you live in California, Obama will win this state. It's not even a contest. Why not do something creative with your vote? Have some fun with it. You know, you can write in ANYONE's name for the presidential election.

Hypnotoad 08!

Proposition 8 really is pretty close, and is evil. It's worth going to the polls just to vote no on that. Religious fundies come out in force, and we need to balance their hate.

krschultz20• 18 years ago

Voting for the President can seem meaningless, but the local elections are really decided by small margins. Our town of 60,000 often has mayoral races that have margins of less than a thousand. And that often has more of an impact on your daily life. Property taxes, local roads, local schools, zoning, parks, green acres conservation etc.

mhartl3• 18 years ago

All Hail President Hypnotoad!

yters3• 18 years ago

And the more Republicans you convince that it is meaningless to vote, the more certain a Democrat win is - so it's inevitable!

Since a Democrat win is inevitable, no one needs to bother voting. Saves all the hassle of standing in line and such.

astine2• 18 years ago

Obama held a rally two blocks from my home last night. There were over two thousand at the rally all partying and having a good time. I imagine that they all went home so confident that the next day they forgot to vote.

I'm joking of course. This state will swing blue this year. But, it's happened before that over-confidence has lost an election.

I suggest that every man go out and vote his conscience. It's not just about who wins this time. It's about perception, and exercise of your rights. If you don't exercise your rights, they will be taken away. Even if you disagree with both major candidates, a vote of 'other' will do more for your cause than no vote.

kirubakaran• 18 years ago

No more election news after tomorrow, yay!

aneesh• 18 years ago

No, that's when the retrospective "This is how [Obama|McCain] won" articles start about who was best organized, who used technology best, etc :)

unalone4• 18 years ago

I would LOVE to study Obama's campaign as a retrospect. He did things nobody else ever thought of. He is the first real Internet candidate.

ojbyrne• 18 years ago

As some people have said to me (I'm Canadian) - no, that's when the lawsuits start.

qwph• 18 years ago

If I ran a newspaper, I'd have both articles already written, so I could hit the press as soon as the result was confirmed...

axod5• 18 years ago

"How McCain/Palin stole the presidency even though they lost"

TrevorJ• 18 years ago

A small price to pay for the privilege of not living under a dictator or king.

eru3• 18 years ago

What's so bad about Kings? Most modern Monarchies seem to do just fine.

scudco9• 18 years ago

I know this might rile a few people up, but I think voting is coercive. Personally, I don't see myself ever participating in a vote unless I know everyone involved in its consequences is a consenting individual. So I respectfully disagree that it is my duty or anyone's duty to participate in a coercive vote. http://is.gd/3WIh

enomar4• 18 years ago

You pay taxes though, right?

scudco9• 18 years ago

Out of fear of being murdered, yes. Honestly, this may sound like an exaggeration to prove a point, but I honestly pay taxes to save myself from certain death. But I am glad you asked because I am interested in not paying federal taxes next year. Instead of simply keeping the money for myself, however, I want to calculate what the federal government would like to rob from my wages and giving it away to charity. If you're interested in doing something like this with me let me know.

sd• 18 years ago

If you think the American government is coercive, then imagine what would transpire in its absence. Regardless, voting reduces the coercive power of the state by affording citizens the right to change government.

dejb2• 18 years ago

You wouldn't like Australia then. Voting is compulsory. You would risk a $20 fine (or having to come up with a good excuse) if you don't vote. Orwellian maybe, but they do have sausage sizzles and cake stalls which most people seem to like.

tjmc• 18 years ago

My mother once wrote to them "I think compulsory democracy is a contradiction in terms" Clever, but they still fined her.

jwilliams• 18 years ago

Indeed... I've had a few arguments about whether it should be compulsory or not... If this is some kind of infringement on personal liberties and such.

Whichever side I've argued on (and I've tried either) - generally everyone agrees that having the vast majority of the population vote is a good idea, and "works" on whatever level you want to define that.

laut• 18 years ago

And expensive, capped, government controlled internet. Which the government wants to add an extensive government firewall to. And logging/surveillance of which websites people visit.

But who want's freedom when you can have sausages? ;)

parenthesis• 18 years ago

I think that voting should be compulsory, but with a 'none of the above' option.

tlrobinson7• 18 years ago

By remaining in your country and paying taxes you've bought into the "system" that most of us accept as a pretty good one. You're free to emigrate somewhere else if you don't like it. I don't see anything "coercive" about that.

scudco9• 18 years ago

What if I chose to remain and not pay taxes. Am I then free to live peacefully and not be a part of the state? Essentially, what happens when I peacefully non-comply?

lutorm4• 18 years ago

That link makes no sense to me. Not that I'm saying this particular system we are talking about is perfect, far from it, but what's the alternative? How would you like society to make decisions? After all, any society must necessarily make decisions affecting those who do not have a say, like infants and people yet to be born. Surely it's better if as many as possible of those affected have a say? (Personally, I'd like the entire world to have a vote in the US election because of its far-reaching effects, but I don't think that delegitimizes the system... entirely. ;-)

If you feel oppressed by the US democratic system, you could always apply for asylum in a country that you think better runs according to your values...

scudco9• 18 years ago

What if I want to simply secede from the government entirely?

To your final point, though, I find this talk of emigration strange. Many people ask me this question and I concede that it is not entirely out of the realm of possibility for me. However, am I not petitioning for the same thing a voting population is? The difference I see is that I do not want to affect change through the apparatus of the state because I find it illegitimate. Instead I will try to affect change through non-violent means. I'll speak with you and try to convince you that non-violence is the way toward a peaceful and sustainable society. I will not use the barrel of a gun personally or by proxy(the police) to tell you or anyone else what to do. I will not get together with my friends to vote on what you must and mustn't do.

Be peaceful.

krakensden• 18 years ago

You seem confused. The purpose of government is to have a stable group of muggers who behave themselves, not to make you guilt-free.

/You/ can never legitimize or de-legitimize the state, only its citizens in aggregate can. Which is why voting is so handy, you get to de-legitimize a state without all that nasty killing.

I don't understand grand visions of a world built entirely of nice people. Someone will always figure out that they can be top dog by being 10% more asshole than everyone else, and then you're back to the start- building a society around coercion and limiting assholes and useful shortcuts to revolution.

Public schools may not be the best, but you may have missed some important life lessons by skipping out.

olavk2• 18 years ago

For better or worse, US have a lot of coercive power around the world, and your choice of president can make a big difference for a lot of people who have no say in the election.

So as a non-american I tell you that it is your goddam duty to get informed and vote.

You may not like to vote, but you have to. It's like watching a car crash about to happen and you have the ability to prevent it - sure it infringes on your personal freedom to mind you own business, but it's your duty to do something anyway.

jobeirne4• 18 years ago

As an American, it is my right to be able to choose not to vote.

markm• 18 years ago

I don't think the message should be Just vote, but rather get educated on the issues and cast an informed vote.

speek2• 18 years ago

You're completely right.

I probably should have explicitly said that, but I meant people should get educated as well.

eru3• 18 years ago

Too bad all that education gets reduced to essentially one bit..

jim-greer• 18 years ago

Everyone should learn as much about the issues as they can, though when it comes down to it you only have to be more informed than the average voter to improve the pool. Which isn't too high a bar.

bprater• 18 years ago

Don't forget this:

You are picking a President of our Great Nation for the next 4 years.

However, you are also electing a President that will likely choose one or more new Justices for our Supreme Court. That choice could live on for the next 30-40 years.

If a conservative President is elected, the court will likely swing conservative with his choice in one or more Justices. Liberal decisions like Roe V. Wade may be overturned. Pick a liberal President and it will likely be upheld.

It is those kinds of decisions that the court will make that will affect you in a direct way for a very long time.

If that's important to you -- vote.

jdavid6• 18 years ago

I unfortunately do not believe that is sufficient value in arguing about something that is so personal to people.

A president's first concern should be to the sovereignty of a Nation (economy, education, infrastructure, trade, military), and somehow, whether or not a woman wants to kill her unborn child is of little concern to me on a national level. That is something that should be decided by her religious beliefs or where she chooses to live and raise her family. I meat so many female vegetarians that don't want to kill a cow to eat it, that I can not imagine a woman aborting a baby because its FUN.

Women typically have a reason, and if we want to stop abortions there are so many pieces to the puzzle that making abortions illegal will not stop them.

If the reasons are economic, then we need to give single mothers more help.

If the reason is emotional in the case of rape and inceast, we need to be understanding to let them choose.

If the reason is medical, and life threatening, the moral lines are gray at best anyways.

If it was done as the result of a carefree sexual behavior, stopping abortions are not going to stop pre-martial sex. Heck I bet many of us on this forum are 1st borns and very well might be the result of a opps between two unmarried lovers.

It really pains me that we can become so easily divided on a topic that is so personal and so hard to be black and white on.

I really wish there were more political options than YES or NO.

lutorm4• 18 years ago

I'm with you here. Besides it being a matter of the majority tyrannizing a tiny minority (same with same-sex marriage), while I can see how people can feel strongly about it, I'm surprised they really feel it is so important that it should trump issues affecting their own daily lives like economy, health care and the environment.

Prrometheus6• 18 years ago

I would like justices that interpret the Constitution as written, and sadly liberal justices don't seem to have any concern for that.

peregrine• 18 years ago

It's my first time voting in a major election. Ever since I was a young lad I dreamed of voting. Every election I vote, city council, state, federal, whatever I vote. I take the 20mins to Google and find out what I need and make a decision.

If you say "Who cares anyways one vote isn't going to matter" think of it this way.One rain drop doesn't create or fill a river, but a million together do. Every time you exercise your rights to vote you add a small drop.

patrickg-zill• 18 years ago

If you are an idiot, please do not vote.

staunch• 18 years ago

Or at least vote for my candidate of choice!

Retric2• 18 years ago

I think idiot's voting for your candidate is corrosive to that political party. Take republicans and farm subsidies they are directly in opposition to most of the "core" principles of personal accountability, free trade, less government etc but try and find a republican in Idaho that does not support them.

thomasmallen• 18 years ago

The government represents dimwits too, you know. They usually form a key constituency.

ivankirigin• 18 years ago

I don't really like blind calls to vote. If you don't have an educated opinion, or even an inkling based on a gut reaction of character, don't vote.

fallentimes• 18 years ago

But also realize one of the great things about living in a free country, even with all of America's faults, is the ability to exercise your right _not_ to vote.

hugh2• 18 years ago

In Australia we have compulsory voting. Everybody has to get off their arse and do it (or at least go to a polling place, take a ballot sheet and stick it in a box, you can leave it blank or draw a penis on it if you want).

Personally I see both upside and downsides to it. On one hand it's a violation of my right not to vote, but on the other hand that's one of the more minor violations which the government by necessity commits anyway. The upside is that it leads to more moderate politics -- there's no need for the parties to appease the "base", so they always wind up fighting in the centre.

krschultz20• 18 years ago

But if you have to be forced to vote, how much could you know about the issues? My vote is worth more at 1/130 million than at 1/300 million. Still pretty small, but I'd rather that than be swamped by people who haven't a clue (even though many are that way already).

bmunro• 18 years ago

Because it is compulsory, it is also very easy to vote in Australia.

Most people can walk to their local school, community hall etc. There are places to vote absolutely everywhere.

There are no queues to vote. You just walk in and vote. This year, I queued for the first time ever. there were four people in front of me, I had to wait maybe twenty seconds.

Voting is always held on Saturday

rewind• 18 years ago

And to all the non-Americans on HN -- myself among them -- please don't forget to post a reminder to your fellow countrymen/women on HN to vote if your country is having an election. I'm sure all the people who upvoted this post will be super-pumped to see that at the top of the homepage! Some other TellHN topics that I'd like to see in the future:

- Just say no to drungs - Don't drink and drive - Have your pets spayed and neutered

I'm Canadian, and I'm just giving you guys a hard time ;-)

Actually, I think most Canadians are a bit jealous because we just had an election that was a huge waste of money and didn't mean a damn thing. I have to admin, yours is way more interesting.

time_management2• 18 years ago

Although I intend on voting tomorrow, I don't agree that it's a "duty" to vote. In fact, I usually don't vote in local elections if I don't have substantial knowledge about the candidates, and given that I've moved about 10 times in the last 6 years, that's often. (The top few Google hits do not amount to "substantial knowledge".) The purpose of voting is value discovery (analogous to "price discovery" in financial markets) but if I'm not able to evaluate the candidates, I'm not really assisting in that process; I'm just adding noise. I think that a major reason the two-party system exists is that a significant number of people vote based on party "brand name" without evaluating the individual candidates.

sdurkin• 18 years ago

The best reason to vote is not that your vote will change the election, its that the process of voting will change you.

It causes you to consider the problems in your society and be aware of proposed solutions. Sounding your voice is just as important as being heard.

kaens6• 18 years ago

Lots of people vote without considering anything at all, or without being aware of proposed solutions.

Hell, I'd guess that the majority of voters yesterday were not very well informed about any of the proposed solutions.

PStamatiou• 18 years ago

Dear Texas, THANKS FOR NOT SENDING MY ABSENTEE BALLOT! I don't know how many forms I filled out, but you never sent me a ballot. I have my voter registration card here and everything. Short of an 800 mile roadtrip or standby flight home, looks like I'll be sitting this one out. :-/

elidourado• 18 years ago

Not voting.

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." -- H. L. Mencken

mindslight2• 18 years ago

Yes please just show up and fill in a bubble for either of the candidates likely to win. You too can help legitimize both the appointment of a president who only has support from 35% of the population, and the process of using machines which will change your vote when it actually matters!

tlrobinson7• 18 years ago

I think you're lost. It sounds like you're looking for www.reddit.com

mindslight2• 18 years ago

What's the difference between reddit and HN with blatant political topics such as this one? Normally I avoid feeding political comments on HN, but with this submission it seems any decency has gone out the window.

I'm going to the polls tomorrow due to tradition and ease of conversation. But if one's default action is to stay home, they'll get more done by sticking with that. Hackers change the world by writing code, not by checking a box and hoping that somehow this time will be different.

far33d• 18 years ago

I thought this was going to be a plea about how to keep crappy stories off the front page.

kajecounterhack• 18 years ago

http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/09/mitra-economy-mess-tech-ent...

Time for us to buckle down and admit that Obama's going to win and that angel investment is going to suffer a bit, and sole proprietorships with taxes rising from 35%->50% are going to have to bite the bullet.

pkrumins• 18 years ago

Not just vote -- vote for Obama!!!

mattmaroon5• 18 years ago

I think Hacker News is now officially looking down and seeing a shark pass below.

Tichy2• 18 years ago

I am not too concerned if singular special events end up on HN. There are not enough events of that scope to pose a threat (I presume).

mattmaroon5• 18 years ago

It's just the clicheness of it that bothers me. Nobody in the country needs a reminder. It's the same with all the various holiday messages.

Prrometheus6• 18 years ago

Your vote will make no difference. Statistically, you have a better chance of winning the Powerball lottery than making a difference with your vote.

Voting is not "speaking for yourself". You are allowed to speak one of two things, neither of which may be what you want to say.

You do have the power to change things and make the world a better place, but not through the political process.

If you stay home from the polls and use that time to read to a child or help an old lady carry groceries, you will have done more good for the world than if you spent the morning voting.

Most of the good things in this world, our vast cultural heritage and our technological richness, have not been generated through the voting booth. If you want to contribute to the material and spiritual wealth of our species, you will find your efforts best spent elsewhere.

If you buy into the hype and feel compelled to vote for the entertainment aspect of it, don't pretend that you are better than those who did not. You aren't.

When the officials you vote for harm other people through their actions in office, those people have the right to complain, even if they did not vote. Morality is not overridden by democracy.

rms2• 18 years ago

I presume you will be staying home and reading to a child instead of voting today? You're a much better person than everyone else on the internet. If only the whole world was like you, we'd have completely eliminated everything wrong with society by now.

Prrometheus6• 18 years ago

I will be voting, but I acknowledge that it is purely for entertainment value and that I am not changing the world and that I am not morally better than those that do not vote. In fact, many of them are probably morally better than I.

lst• 18 years ago

(I have to give you a really bad notice: Obama is not Christ. So please don't expect too much from politics.)

markessien• 18 years ago

I wonder what the headlines will be tommorow. If I were an editor, I'd go for one of these tabloid headlines in 24pt font, depending on who wins:

Bradley Baloney!

Obama in Power!

McCain upsets Again!

Blowout!

Guess who's coming to the White House?

ashleyw• 18 years ago

Wish I could vote, I've suffered though the campaigns just as much as any American, and lets face it — what ever the US does, the rest of the world follows.

But if I could...it'd be for Obama.

asnyder• 18 years ago

Just voted, and it felt great!

APLonDrugs8• 18 years ago

Agree, Me too:-)

axod5• 18 years ago

Isn't 1 vote per person just mob rule though? You end up with the lowest common denominator...

Doesn't it sort of irritate the hell out of you if you're informed, voting for the best interests of the country and future, while someone next to you is voting because the candidate has a nice smile or has the same first name as them.

Maybe you get a vote when you can answer a few simple questions to prove you actually have a clue what you are voting for etc.

You wouldn't run a company by giving an apprentice the same voting rights in decisions as the CEO.

Personally I think there's a lot to be said for having a monarchy.

I know these views are probably completely counter to most people, but that's life... Thought I'd give my 2c.

nihilocrat2• 18 years ago

Too late! I already early voted. Do all states have early voting or just some?

thomasfl• 18 years ago

If I were an american I'd vote. You guys need a change.

astine2• 18 years ago

Done.

Stubbs• 18 years ago

I hope the UK pays half as much interest in the next General Election as there has been over the US election.

Unfortunately I don't believe we have any candidates half as compelling at Obama.

telliksemoh• 18 years ago

OBAMA STRAIGHT UP LIED!!!! He said he had nothing to do with the CFR(Council on Foreign Relations) Then why is his wifes name on the list? Oops? So i guess your wife is in it but you have nothing to do with it!? OK! If you're voting for Obama or McCain, they are members of the COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, and the NEW WORLD ORDER. Clinton, too. They are for globalization and one world government. Their plans are to build the NAFTA superhighway, starting in eastern Texas, heading north. They will be stealing Americans land by emminent domain. Then the opening of the Canadian and Mexican borders will be next. We will then be called the NORTH AMERICAN UNION, followed by the new currency, the AMERO. The USA will be dissolved.

acgourley• 18 years ago

I see you registered that name just to post that.

rms2• 18 years ago

I like the Council on Foreign Relations. They do rule the world, but they aren't as extreme as they are made out to be. It is more like, no one ever questions them, because they are always right. If the NY Times has a bias, it is in favor of the Council on Foreign Relations's world view. When you get down to it, it is really bizarre how much influence these think tanks can have, the most profound example being the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Ce...

Globalization is not so bad. Either way, it's inevitable. The CFR may rule the world with their quiet influence, but the rest is conspiracy theory. If the world eventually unites in world government, it will be the UN running things, not your mysterious new world order.

Obama is not a member of the CFR, but he gave a speech to them, as required of all serious presidential candidates.

hollywoodcole• 18 years ago

Go vote! If you guys can stand in lines for a xbox 360 and iphone you can stand in line to vote.

yagibear• 18 years ago

Haven't we already voted in a poll from PG http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=349421 asking "Allow stories about the election?", with 49 yes and 218 no when I last checked?

igorhvr• 18 years ago

I find it amusing that a popularity contest (and one not really different from a high school one in any significant way) is used to decide who will take charge of a country.

I am also impressed to see otherwise intelligent people defending this scheme, and honestly believing it to be a great one or even claiming there is not better alternative.

Tell HN: Vote.

Related Stories