Tell HN: Please Vote | Hacker News Reader

Tell HN: Please Vote

88 pointscperciva36 comments

The strongest sign of a healthy democracy is that people participate in it. It's up to you to decide who to vote for, but no matter who you support, please show up and cast a ballot. A democracy with 75% voter turnout is healthier than a democracy with 50% voter turnout even exactly the same politicians got elected, because citizens participating in a democratic process signals that they value the process and want to keep it.

(Obviously, this only applies to people eligible to vote in ongoing elections. If you're not eligible to vote, please don't vote.)

View on HN

Why is this flagged? And don't come whining how you don't like political content here.

I don't like political content in my daily life, but political content decided it will meet me in the grocery store, gas station, etc. And I don't even get the same political content as those poor people in Ukraine or Gaza or Tehran.

Also, if you vote, that shows that your demographic (age, gender, region, etc) matters to the process and thus matters for how candidates build their platform and parties choose their candidates.

Wait, Colin. You're Canadian. You already had your election day. Stay in your lane!

I care about democracy everywhere. But yes, being Canadian makes me unusually sensitive to wanting a democracy 30 km south of me.

I assume that this "Canadian Onion" post lands spot on for Colin, like it does for me:

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2026/11/canadian-spends-day-men...

Cool things about Canadian democracy: filibuster doesn’t really stop things in a majority situation; the last time the head of state pardoned someone was in 2010; the last time the constitution was amended was in 2022; head of state can veto any law they want ONCE but then they get immediately fired and replaced by someone who won’t veto (it’s a ceremonial position).

Lame thing about Canadian democracy: every provincial and federal government is allowed to press an “ignore the constitution for 5 years” button when they pass new laws.

Why are you against people voting?

The strongest sign of a healthy democracy is that people participate in it.

A counter would be that if people have to be badgered into doing it it's maybe not so healthy.

Withholding your vote is valid - ofc why you do that can be positive or negative wrt democratic health.

Many jurisdictions count spoiled ballots. A spoiled ballot is a much stronger signal than not voting.

> because citizens participating in a democratic process signals that they value the process and want to keep it.

Key word: "signals". The reason you give for voting is actually a symptom of "health" (left undefined here). It's not necessarily a cause. I'm sure there are good reasons to encourage people to vote, but this one doesn't make sense to me.

Wife and I voted in Iowa last week. Normally I volunteer at the polls for my small county each election too, but they didn't need volunteers this year!

Buy a lottery ticket and thank a guy who was tricked into go to war to kill kids in foreign lands for your billionaires while you’re at it.

That's exactly why you shouldn't vote. Don't legitimize a process which is not legitimate.

No matter which side wins, the same economical interests will win and corrupt the current leader. You have no choice. All politicians are corrupted because the incentives are there to corrupt them.

Democracy is not the answer, the answer is removing power from the central government.

Also, this is last national election of the Trump era, so have your say while you still can!

It could be our last meaningful election if we don't stop him.

Can you elaborate? I'm hearing an awful lot of talk about packing the courts[1] and abolishing the senate[2] from the Democrats. What is Trump proposing that matches those anti-democratic measures?

[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2026/05/12/...

[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/07/senate-representat...

You really don't have to search all that hard.

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/25/us/politics/trumps-electi...

[2]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/rejects-trump...

[3]: https://www.votebeat.org/national/2026/11/02/trump-midterm-e...

[4]: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/trac... (probably fine in general, it's the timing that is strategic)

[5]: https://apnews.com/article/midterms-election-day-voting-poll...

Edit, and let's not forget, a 3rd term (or, really, perpetual monarchy):

[6]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-trump-has-said-about-pursu...

If only we had access to super intelligent search engines... or we can drip feed a bad faith mook battle

And yet, no one is posting any concrete policies Trump is working on passing in response. Just accusations of "bait" and "bad faith". Alright guys, very convincing.

I don't think you can call bad faith for worrying about the guy who has already been impeached in Congress for inciting insurrection.

Your favorite LLM can find any number of executive orders Trump has signed, bills he's tried to persuade Congress to write and pass, and lawsuits his justice department has filed in pursuit of tipping the scales permanently in favor of himself first and his party second. You don't need anyone to link you to these records for your own edification – or, far more likely, for you to pick at with whataboutism – when you have the power to find it all at your own fingertips.

Struggling to find the difference between the blue AIPAC vs the red AIPAC recipient. For now, it's over.

Then vote for a 3rd party. See the other comments for why that still matters, even if they don't win.

That's why the Democrats lost me. Now I don't associate with any party.

They still email me asking for donations, and I always reply with a question "what's your stance on the genocide in Gaza" none of them responded at all, except Graham Planter.

> A democracy with 75% voter turnout is healthier than a democracy with 50% voter turnout even exactly the same politicians got elected, because citizens participating in a democratic process signals that they value the process and want to keep it.

I disagree.

In Russia in 2024, Vladimir Putin got 87% of the vote, with 78% reported voter turnout, far higher than in any US election. Do you think that signals that Russian citizens value democracy and want to keep the current process, where Putin invariably wins by a landslide?

I'm not saying that people shouldn't get out and vote if they feel so moved. But voter turnout isn't intrinsically good or bad, nor does it signal a healthy democracy.

What DOES signal a healthy democracy?

- Meaningful electoral choice, including the choice of minor-party candidates. Ranked-choice voting can help here, because it's not as susceptible to vote spoiling as the "first past the post" system currently in widespread use in the US.

- Non-gerrymandered districts. Independent review and judicial checks and balances can help.

- Electoral competitiveness, where incumbents and established parties can realistically lose power. Term limits can help here.

- Accountability of elected officials.

- Integrity of the electoral process.

- Peaceful transfer of power.

You are referring to rigged elections. It is proven 78% voter turnout is falsified. https://rima.media/en/document/02w3bnLISYbKga8VJRNYHa-2024-0...

Ah, HN pedantry. "The thing you said is perfectly correct in the context you meant and everyone understood, but technically..."

Countries in which voting is voluntary tend to have more extreme left- or right-wing governments because countries which have compulsory voting tend to be generally more centralist.

Remember, even if you hate everyone on the ballot, you can still write in or spoil it! Make your discontent known

This is an awful approach. Nobody looks at or cares about your write-in or spoiled ballot (not in the US anyway).

Imagine you’re standing at a bus stop and there are two buses scheduled to arrive soon. Neither goes exactly to your destination, but one will get you closer to the general area. Which one do you choose? Choosing neither only ensures you will never get there.

You shouldn't always write in/spoil/third party, that's ineffective. But never doing so is also ineffective. Your vote should depend on the quailty of the candidates (relative to some realistic standard); that's the only way you can have any leverage.

Very true. "I am engaged and unhappy and vote every time" is a much more powerful message than "meh, I'm unhappy, but I may or may not actually vote if you try to help me".

There seems to be some sort of national conspiracy to give the group that votes the most what they want.... Funny how that works.

Voting matters. I'm in a deep red state and will vote blue. There's zero chance the people I vote for will be elected.

My vote still matters. It still influence the flow of money both locally and nationally. It still sends a signal.

I hope the whole nation shifts my way, and in case there's any doubt or claims of fraud, I want it to be seen that my area shifted the same way too. It makes lies about fraud that much harder to support.

Voting is the best bang for your buck to make your opinion known. Granted, if you openly campaign or start an organization, you might have more influence than voting, but these things require much much more effort. Voting is very efficient and worth the small effort required.

Nothing says F U to politicians quite like voting against them every time. There are some people I want to say that to. You probably do too, so vote.

You can probably make a bigger difference by switching your registration to Republican and then voting in the primaries.

In most cases where a deep red state elects someone terrible to national office (e.g., someone like Marjorie Taylor Green or Lauren Boebert) there was a reasonably normal Republican running against them in the primaries.

But primary turnout is generally low except among the very politically active and that generally includes the kind of people who think people like MTG make sense so an MTG can win.

Then when it gets to the general election they win because a lot of people who vote but aren't really politically active just vote along party lines.

Effective, in deep red or deep blue states, the primary is for all practical purposes the general election. Hence it makes sense to register with the majority party so you can vote in their primary.

You can still vote in the general election for the minority party candidate for the same reasons you now do so.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com