Hacker News Reader

Comment by rhino369 | Hacker News Reader

I have no idea myself, but I think we can guess based on the fact that democrats generally want more turnout and republicans generally want less turn out. That suggests that democrats and republicans generally agree that the 100% would benefit democrats.

View on HN

That doesn't explain Washington State, where the Democrats didn't use their state-provided primary at all (all of their primary delegates were allocated by a caucus you had to attend) and the Republicans did (though only one candidate is running now, so it doesn't really matter).

The Democrats made you physically get up on a Saturday and go, unless you had a valid excuse. Elections in Washington are by mail, so to vote in the Republican primary, you only had to walk to your mailbox.

That's irrelevant, because the turnout in-person among Democrats isn't comparable to the turnout via mail of Republicans.

vote-by-mail patters are changing, however, to be more representative of the electorate as a whole. i think it tended to skew more conservative in the past because the RNC invested considerable resources into VBM programs. the DNC has been a little later to the VBM process.

I did notice the org has raised $650K from a variety of sources.

It might be interesting to see the ideological bent of the source of that funding. But I'm guessing it probably isn't oil drillers and Jesus in public school promoters.

i would say that our funding tends to come from more progressive donors. that being said, we are ready, willing and able to take funding from say the Koch brothers should they ever offer to financially support our efforts to increase voter turnout.

i tend to think more in terms of progressives and conservatives than dems vs. republicans. given the demographic makeup of our country, the majority of citizens are progressive: they assume that the future is brighter than the past and long for forward thinking policies.

then again, i can't see into a crystal ball. i will say this, however: both major parties would have policies that represent the will of the people if we had 100% voter turnout. we'd see greater satisfaction with government and a more equitable taxation system with increased turnout. i also think we'd see higher investment in education and health care.

... and I'd argue that the progressive ideas tend to actually be more regressive and that us 'conservatives' actually have the brighter outlook. :)

oh, interesting. i guess i know doom and gloom people from both sides of the aisle, but more from the conservative side? at the same time, americans are overwhelming positive as a people, are we not? why get up every day if you don't think the future is bright enough to justify shades.

(yes, i just made a corey hart reference in public. i think i just dated myself)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com