I don't agree that voting on a cell phone is the right solution here. I live in Colorado, we get mail-in ballots and a book describing each of the issues.
I got mine last week. I sat down read over each item, did some research on the internet, and filled in my vote. It was a long ballot (2 legal-sized pages front and back), and took about an hour. Mailed it in earlier today.
How does doing that on a cell phone improve this? In fact, it sounds more frustrating, because my phone is tiny, may need to be charged, internet connectivity issues, etc.
And really, if we're going to talk about how flawed our system is, this is like one of the more minor points. If you want to get to the root of it, let's talk about how to get rid of the 2 party system, and allow more diverse parties and ideas. That's the real problem.
> And really, if we're going to talk about how flawed our system is, this is like one of the more minor points. If you want to get to the root of it, let's talk about how to get rid of the 2 party system, and allow more diverse parties and ideas. That's the real problem.
I agree. People will put more effort into voting if they were more motivated, but voting for the "lesser of two evils" is hardly a motivator.
I'd say the electoral college, where it's winner-take-all per state, also plays a large role in keeping people home on election day. If you're in a heavily blue or red state, it's pretty hard to convince yourself that your vote matters.
The article is not about voting on a cell phone. It's about sending text messages to people to try to convince them to go vote.
The key takeaway is probably that they think the cost might come in at $8 per voter, compared to $20 for more traditional methods of voter encouragement.
Because not every state is like that. I live in Pennsylvania. I don't even know what the ballot issues will be. Hell, I don't even know who is running locally.
I also can't vote by mail just because I want to. I have to be out of town on official business to "qualify" for a mail in ballot. Being on vacation isn't even an apparently accepted reason (on mobile but I'll get a link)
Section A: I declare that I am eligible to vote absentee at the forthcoming primary or election since I expect that my duties, occupation or
business will require me to be absent from the municipality of my residence on the day of the primary or election for the reason stated
below; and that all of the information which I have listed on this absentee ballot application is true and correct.
Section B: I declare that I am eligible to vote absentee at the forthcoming primary or election due to the illness or physical disability stated
below; that the information required to be listed pertaining to my attending physician is correctly stated herein and that all other
information that I have listed on this absentee ballot application is true and correct.
If you opt to vote by mail, California's process is similar! The voter booklet was actually very helpful to me because it contained some candidate statement that weren't online (for local municipal positions).
Super PAC has a specific technical meaning, it's a PAC that has filed a statement following guidelines established by a couple of court cases. The statements are listed here:
Maybe if the code was open source, the firmware could be verified by a voter somehow, and there was some kind of blockchain system where every individual could verify their own vote... but otherwise I'd much rather have a paper trail.
Electronic voting allows for superior voting systems like Condorcet methods, that are too expensive to implement by hand.
My ideal system is two separate machines. One takes votes and prints them onto a paper ballot in OCR readable font. The voter can then inspect their ballot to make sure the machine didn't alter it, and then turn it in.
Then another machine can read the ballots and table the votes. This machine doesn't need any kind of input other than paper ballots, and its easy to test it and verify it's working properly. This limits the surface area for attacks and tampering.
The machine then outputs a big table of the pairwise election results for every single candidate. You add the tables from every single voting station, and the candidate that would win every pairwise election against every other candidate, wins the election.
I'd love both (paper receipts from an electronic system, that goes into ballot boxes; count the ballots and return the electronic records). But if I had to pick one, I'd pick paper. We know what to look for to spot fraud with paper ballots.
Yup...I support pen and paper(along with an observer system), exit polling, and voter ID. Probably the most objectionable of my points is voter ID, but I would be all for government spending whatever it took to make sure that all eligible citizens had an ID to vote.
That's impossible to the point that it's completely preposterous. Utter insanity. Even if you could change the law so that corporate involvement of all types were illegal (not happening) corporations would still be involved behind the scenes.
I think there is a fundamental difference between a corporation offering (relatively) agnostic tools to help voters vote more in accordance with their (the voter's) values and a corporation which is trying to actively influence the election according to the corporation's values.
Why do you want to lump them together? And what goal do you think you're furthering by pushing the idea of an election without corporate involvement?
In some ways, people feeling apathetic about elections is a luxury: not having to care about what the government is or is not doing, especially as it relates to your own livelihood, is something rare in history. High turnout (in the US) happens when there is something special going on.
I would like to see some voter turnout data for comparison from other "democracies" (e.g. Russia, Egypt) before jumping to that conclusion.
I get the distinct impression that voter turnout is low because no matter who gets elected, voters have become accustomed to politicians not representing their interests in any meaningful capacity.
The problem is not with the voting system: it's with the fact that most people are vastly under-educated and propagandised -- and that's just the Hacker News population.
This is really the meat and potatos of the electorate. The system depends on knowing what giant swaths of the country are going to vote for. The people that run for office (the parties, not the candidates) have a vested interest in refining a race down to a few targeted areas. In presidential elections that's only a dozen or so counties per swing state.
I can't speak for this specific effort; but most 'get out the vote' campaigns are designed to fill one a single parties rosters. E.g. Rock the Vote concerts put on by MTV with the Democratic Party pre-checked.
If you don't generate new apathetic and uninformed voters who will do what Kim K tells them to do; attrition will turn your once very predictable race into a much more expensive coin toss.
I'm still pretty excited by what Vote.org is doing. Clearly something is broken when our turnout is one of the lowest among the OECD. And if our government – particularly state governments – won't fix even problems that are low-hanging fruit, then fundamentally someone has to do something.
My main concern, though, is that we're going to continue to struggle to justify the utility of voting to the average American who truly understands how little their vote impacts policymaking. When 0% of average people support a policy, the chance that it will become law is 31%. When 100% of people support a policy? Also 31%. That's not a functioning democracy.
The fundamentals are very broken. We need to systematically identify how people can wield influence over the political process en masse, and do so without expecting the rules of the game to change. Voting – on its own – has not appeared to be effective at this.
How ridiculous. The flaw in the election system is the lack of proportionality, not lack of a mobile voting app. If people really want everyone to vote then they need to first make sure every vote counts.
If you read the Federalist Papers and other writings of those who actually hammered out the US Constitution, there are strong threads of distaste and fear for the consequences of unfettered popular democracy. The mostly wealthy, land-owning, businessmen and aristocrats who met in Philadelphia envisioned a largely oligarchic, Roman-style Republic, not a Democracy of universal suffrage, liable to succumb to the shifting winds of populism and demagoguery. Only the House was to be directly elected; senators would be selected by their respective state legislatures, not a direct plebiscite. Moreover, they mostly restricted what limited voting rights there were, to white adult male property owners, those with "skin in the game."
Largely, it was a slight modification to the British system that they were already familiar with.
I think basically every thinking person comes to see democracy as deeply flawed in one way or another. The problem is I don't think anyone is aware of a better (non pie-in-the-sky) solution.
Yes, let add an new black box that will be easily manipulated by those in charges. We don't have enough cheating and the system is already so fair, I thing we need to spice things up.
This just demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding at every level of how the political system in the US works.
Our voting system is messed up, but that's a symptom of many deeper problems (FPTP voting, closed vote counting, the mixing of parties with government and others). These problems aren't going to be solved by any one effort. And most definitely not by any SV backed one.
Also, anybody who thinks a text messaging campaign will result in meaningful voter turnout improvement is so distant from understanding why turnout is so low as to be dismissed out of hand.
I don't understand how using the internet to vote will fix the flawed voting system. I think fixing fraud would probably be the best way to increase real voting. There is continuously fraud going on. You see the voter registrations for people that died years ago. You see the people at the polls voting more than once. I'm not voting this election because I don't believe my vote matters (and our candidate choices). People want to be heard, yet the corruption continues. I don't believe simply making it easier to vote will drastically increase voter turnout - real voters, that is.
[+] [-] rgbrenner|9 years ago|reply
I got mine last week. I sat down read over each item, did some research on the internet, and filled in my vote. It was a long ballot (2 legal-sized pages front and back), and took about an hour. Mailed it in earlier today.
How does doing that on a cell phone improve this? In fact, it sounds more frustrating, because my phone is tiny, may need to be charged, internet connectivity issues, etc.
And really, if we're going to talk about how flawed our system is, this is like one of the more minor points. If you want to get to the root of it, let's talk about how to get rid of the 2 party system, and allow more diverse parties and ideas. That's the real problem.
[+] [-] lnrdgmz|9 years ago|reply
I agree. People will put more effort into voting if they were more motivated, but voting for the "lesser of two evils" is hardly a motivator.
I'd say the electoral college, where it's winner-take-all per state, also plays a large role in keeping people home on election day. If you're in a heavily blue or red state, it's pretty hard to convince yourself that your vote matters.
[+] [-] maxerickson|9 years ago|reply
The key takeaway is probably that they think the cost might come in at $8 per voter, compared to $20 for more traditional methods of voter encouragement.
[+] [-] afarrell|9 years ago|reply
If you live in Maine or have friends there, they have a ballot question on implementing Ranked Choice Voting.
https://ballotpedia.org/Maine_Ranked_Choice_Voting_Initiativ...
[+] [-] oconnore|9 years ago|reply
> let's talk about how to get rid of the 2 party system, and allow more diverse parties and ideas
Especially tricky when both parties tend to be against those sorts of proposals, for obvious reasons.
[+] [-] pragone|9 years ago|reply
I also can't vote by mail just because I want to. I have to be out of town on official business to "qualify" for a mail in ballot. Being on vacation isn't even an apparently accepted reason (on mobile but I'll get a link)
Edit: Link to PA absentee ballot application: http://www.dosimages.pa.gov/pdf/AbsenteeBallotApplication.pd...
Relevant parts:
Section A: I declare that I am eligible to vote absentee at the forthcoming primary or election since I expect that my duties, occupation or business will require me to be absent from the municipality of my residence on the day of the primary or election for the reason stated below; and that all of the information which I have listed on this absentee ballot application is true and correct.
Section B: I declare that I am eligible to vote absentee at the forthcoming primary or election due to the illness or physical disability stated below; that the information required to be listed pertaining to my attending physician is correctly stated herein and that all other information that I have listed on this absentee ballot application is true and correct.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] exolymph|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kyrre|9 years ago|reply
this is nothing but a Super-PAC for Hillary Clinton that exploit a loop hole in the robocall laws
60 people holding down the 'enter' key 24/7 (it's not automated!). disruptive.
this is the most unethical company YC has backed since InstallMonetizer
[+] [-] maxerickson|9 years ago|reply
http://www.fec.gov/press/press2011/ieoc_alpha.shtml
I guess it would be more accurate to just assert that you believe they are partisan.
[+] [-] pmoriarty|9 years ago|reply
Computers are too easily hackable.
[+] [-] programmarchy|9 years ago|reply
Maybe if the code was open source, the firmware could be verified by a voter somehow, and there was some kind of blockchain system where every individual could verify their own vote... but otherwise I'd much rather have a paper trail.
[+] [-] Houshalter|9 years ago|reply
My ideal system is two separate machines. One takes votes and prints them onto a paper ballot in OCR readable font. The voter can then inspect their ballot to make sure the machine didn't alter it, and then turn it in.
Then another machine can read the ballots and table the votes. This machine doesn't need any kind of input other than paper ballots, and its easy to test it and verify it's working properly. This limits the surface area for attacks and tampering.
The machine then outputs a big table of the pairwise election results for every single candidate. You add the tables from every single voting station, and the candidate that would win every pairwise election against every other candidate, wins the election.
[+] [-] vidarh|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oh_sigh|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _qbjt|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] erikpukinskis|9 years ago|reply
I think there is a fundamental difference between a corporation offering (relatively) agnostic tools to help voters vote more in accordance with their (the voter's) values and a corporation which is trying to actively influence the election according to the corporation's values.
Why do you want to lump them together? And what goal do you think you're furthering by pushing the idea of an election without corporate involvement?
[+] [-] jdminhbg|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danielrhodes|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xjfjdjxnd|9 years ago|reply
I get the distinct impression that voter turnout is low because no matter who gets elected, voters have become accustomed to politicians not representing their interests in any meaningful capacity.
[+] [-] Unman|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mindslight|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zardo|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stmfreak|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jiggliemon|9 years ago|reply
I can't speak for this specific effort; but most 'get out the vote' campaigns are designed to fill one a single parties rosters. E.g. Rock the Vote concerts put on by MTV with the Democratic Party pre-checked.
If you don't generate new apathetic and uninformed voters who will do what Kim K tells them to do; attrition will turn your once very predictable race into a much more expensive coin toss.
[+] [-] joshdotsmith|9 years ago|reply
My main concern, though, is that we're going to continue to struggle to justify the utility of voting to the average American who truly understands how little their vote impacts policymaking. When 0% of average people support a policy, the chance that it will become law is 31%. When 100% of people support a policy? Also 31%. That's not a functioning democracy.
The fundamentals are very broken. We need to systematically identify how people can wield influence over the political process en masse, and do so without expecting the rules of the game to change. Voting – on its own – has not appeared to be effective at this.
[+] [-] erentz|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kahrkunne|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] awt|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] douche|9 years ago|reply
Largely, it was a slight modification to the British system that they were already familiar with.
[+] [-] dlss|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sametmax|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sidlls|9 years ago|reply
Our voting system is messed up, but that's a symptom of many deeper problems (FPTP voting, closed vote counting, the mixing of parties with government and others). These problems aren't going to be solved by any one effort. And most definitely not by any SV backed one.
Also, anybody who thinks a text messaging campaign will result in meaningful voter turnout improvement is so distant from understanding why turnout is so low as to be dismissed out of hand.
[+] [-] manicdee|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] boneheadmed|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bradleyankrom|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] helthanatos|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bradleyankrom|9 years ago|reply
[0] https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/voter-fraud [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/20/opinion/the-success-of-the...