Hacker News Reader

Comment by sornaensis | Hacker News Reader

Wholeheartedly disagree-- if casting a ballot was as easy as sending a text instead of receiving and then mailing a letter or going to a polling location, I would predict much higher participation. People don't see it worth their time because a single vote really isn't worth anyone's time. Votes only matter as groups!

So obviously you have to make it as braindead simple to vote as we have made everything else. What I do not see the purpose in, is complaining about or nay-saying these attempts. You're never going to convince someone that one vote is worth more than it is, which is what people really mean when they talk about 'engagement', because your vote on its own really just doesn't matter much and people intuitively get that.

Reducing the cost of voting to match the actual value of a single vote is the best move we have IMO.

View on HN

> People don't see it worth their time because a single vote really isn't worth anyone's time.

If someone has that worldview I'm OK with them not voting.

I'm not sure that X% more participation would improve our collective decision making. In essence we'd be diluting the vote of those who care the most with those who think voting by mail is too hard.

This. The thing about "get out the vote" campaigns is, they're intended to draw out the least-involved, least-informed members of the electorate. Which in my book is a bad thing.

Voting is not the only civic duty - educating yourself on the issues at hand is also part of that civic duty. If someone doesn't want to vote because taking the legally-mandated time off to go to the polls or fill out their mail-in ballot is "too much work," I'm not sure they're living up to their end of the bargain as a citizen.

Exercising your right to vote doesn't mean you value it. Shouldn't we be asking how we can get people to value their vote enough to be engaged?

Irrespective of that, haven't we already witnessed the mass security issues that come with making voting machines digital? Do we really want to subject that flawed scenario to even more flaws by putting it out on the web? Do we never learn?

Some people believe, if a politician has $X to spend, they're more likely to spend it on things demographics with high turnout rates want than things demographics with low turnout rates want.

So for example, these people see the interests of people of retirement age represented much better than the interests of under-30s. They see this as part of the cause of rising college costs, and rising house prices transferring wealth from the young to the old.

By this model, every non-voter that starts voting is a step towards more even -and hence more just- representation. And if you're in a demographic with a below-average voting rate, the state better serving your needs.

Of course, that's a largely academic argument in the election of the board of supervisors for a conservation district, who probably don't have much influence on matters like house prices.

>In essence we'd be diluting the vote of those who care the most with those who think voting by mail is too hard.

I travel a lot. So much so that I am actually flying back to Iowa from the West Coast for 2 days in order to participate in the caucus, and flying out again for work the following day. While I am ok with purchasing a plane ticket to participate, it's understandable that others in my situation, particularly in less important states, would not be ok with incurring that cost. Being able to vote by phone would enable absentee voters who are not always around to participate in their home state's elections.

With that being said I understand I am a fringe case - but those who don't vote because "voting by mail is too hard" are likely a fringe case as well. I'd venture to guess those same people wouldn't vote because "they don't want another app on their phone".

> If someone has that worldview I'm OK with them not voting.

Then advocate for making it illegal for some people to vote.

Digital voting is a short term win and a long term catastrophe. Maybe we get better representation for a few cycles but all the voter fraud tactics that exist in regular paper ballot voting will creep into the process and be greatly amplified by the fact it is digital.

Countries with political leaders willing to stoop to the tactics of dictators will have a field day.

Voter turnout is much higher than 1% on the November elections. Sure, reducing the effort of any given vote would help turnout; but also aligning this election with the general election would likely help (it also helps with the cost of elections).

If you making voting online easy, we could easily see >100% participation - and that's the concern.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com