Hacker News Reader

Comment by laxatives | Hacker News Reader

Maybe this is or isn't non-partisan, but here's a shot: I'm 25 years old. I've never voted and never will vote as long as there is a two party system. There has never been a situation where I can agree with either party or individual enough to support them in an election. How do you intend to get people like me to vote?

Also, if you did you get everyone to vote, wouldn't every vote turn in to a popularity contest? In other words, why wouldn't every candidate attempt to win their elections by appealing to the lowest common denominator?

View on HN

> Maybe this is or isn't non-partisan, but here's a shot: I'm 25 years old. I've never voted and never will vote as long as there is a two party system. There has never been a situation where I can agree with either party or individual enough to support them in an election. How do you intend to get people like me to vote?

In most places in the US, there are plenty of downballot elections, many of which are nonpartisan. There are also ways to be involved in the selection of party nominees (including, but not limited to, party primaries, which are in many places open to both members of the parties and those in no party, and in some places you can vote in primaries irrespective of party. Or, in California -- aside from Presidential elections -- the "primaries" are non-partisan first-round election from which the top two vote-getters proceed.)

> In most places in the US, there are plenty of downballot elections, many of which are nonpartisan

I'll add that your vote has much more power in these elections. Usually very few others vote, and the districts are much smaller (your local city council member might have hundreds or thousands of constituents, compared with the President who has 310 million); you vote might be one of several hundred.

If you are interested in political participation one place to start would be state and local races - you are more likely to find unconventional candidates at those levels that don't fit neatly with either party.

I also find it much more plausible that a third party would make inroads at the state and local level and build momentum from there, rather than a third party candidate emerging out of nowhere and taking the presidency outright.

> I also find it much more plausible that a third party would make inroads at the state and local level and build momentum from there, rather than a third party candidate emerging out of nowhere and taking the presidency outright.

For example, and independent in Vermont could become a mayor, then Governor, then Senator, and then have a shot at the White House.

>wouldn't every candidate attempt to win their elections by appealing to the lowest common denominator?

I think that's sort of how democracy is supposed to work. Politicians win when they can convince more people than anyone else. It's like that famous quote: “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others”.

Yes, everything would be better if countries were run by benevolent geniuses who always implemented the right policies even if they weren't popular. But failing that impossible paradise, democracy is the best option. And if only some people vote, and everyone knows in advance roughly who is going to vote, democracy won't work as well. The government should reflect all the people it serves.

One of the more interesting ideas I have rarely seen in fiction is an actual benevolent and wise AI taking over. Closest is probably the Culture novels which shows up as a very odd society.

a wise and benevolent AI would likely do things unwise for the long term survival of humanity

But that'd contradict the 0th law of robotics

It's basically the theme of Asimov's later works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Daneel_Olivaw#The_Foundatio...

Check out the Twilight Zone episode "The Old Man in the Cave" for one example.

Why exactly is democracy the best, or shall we say "least bad", option? Have you, or has Churchill, evaluated all of the alternatives? And how does the belief that you air in your last sentence, that government should reflect all the people it serves, rhyme with your belief that the ideal (but admittedly in your opinion impossible) form of government would be one run by benevolent geniuses who always implement the right policies, even if they are not popular?

If I may, it does seem to me that qualitative and quantitative government are two quite distinct concepts - one might even go so far as to say that they are fundamentally opposed. Increasing voter turnout certainly increases the quantitative, most purely democratic, aspect of democracy - but what should someone who is more interested in the qualitative aspects of government have to say about that? And if one, as a supporter of democracy as the least bad option, recognises the inherent problems of popular government as a necessary trade-off, would it not make sense to try to mitigate as much of those to the greatest extent possible? I'm not sure if increasing voter turnout to absurd levels would be in tune with this latter category of mindsets, but I'd be curious to hear what you or others of a similar opinion think about that...

Well, you've raised some questions that I think are much bigger than an HN comments section, and I think there are many books and essays that will give better answers than I ever could.

If you are interested in mitigating the issues of high voter turnout by discouraging turnout, you are not a supporter of democracy. I don't say that as a value judgment, just by definition, democracy means everyone voting for a government that reflects the whole population.

If you support democracy, then you should support other efforts to solve these problems. Improve education to increase voter quality. Design the government so some crucial positions are somewhat shielded from popular opinion (judges, generals, etc.). Modify term limits to protect politicians from potentially unpopular decisions. I don't know, I'm sure there are plenty of other ideas. We could ask Belgium and Turkey and Sweden what they do to combat the threat of irrational and uneducated voters.

I have not evaluated all the alternatives to democracy, but I would say history has. That's not a perfect answer, but in practice democracy is clearly at least as effective as any other government system, and by many measures clearly the best option.

When I say that a benevolent genius would be better, I don't think that contradicts my other points because all real governments are run by humans, and all humans are flawed. But when a dictator or a small group of ruling elites screws up, they have incredibly strong motivations to hang onto power anyway. This is a bad thing. In an ideal democracy, there is no long-term way for any one person or group of people to remain in power unless they govern in a way that benefits their whole country. I don't think this is true for any other system of government.

Finally, if you don't consistently make decisions that your people support, they will overthrow you. It doesn't matter if you know what's best for them. There is no point in trying to design a government that doesn't reflect the people, because it won't last, regardless of how great its policies are.

"Why exactly is democracy the best, or shall we say "least bad", option?"

Because it does allow for choice. It makes the leaders accountable to the electorate, as they can always vote them out next election. Most other forms of government do not allow for the government to be changed easily.

If you have a better form of government in mind, I'm sure we'd like to hear it.

> Why exactly is democracy the best, or shall we say "least bad", option?

Because government is fundamentally, inalterably whatever the citizenry decides to accept. Providing feedback on what the citizenry is willing to accept through elections and aligning government with that minimizes the frequency and degree to which the feedback from the citizenry on what they are willing to accept is provided through violent and/or destructive means.

To address your first question, the actual quote is:

> Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

So it's not a claim that democracy is the least worst simpliciter, but an empiric claim of history (and compared to 20th century alternatives like national socialism, fascism etc, is backed by evidence). None of that however, justifies the claim that democracy is the best form of government compared when compared possible alternatives.

Correct. The very best form of government is a good king with final say on all matters of importance to the state. The problem with that is that there have only been a handful of good kings over the last few millennia.

Government should be aiming to hit the lowest common denominator.

It's a tragedy that candidates get 51% of the votes (representing 25% of the electorate) and then start blubbering about their mandate.

Voting for 3rd party's often has a larger impact than voting for the top 2 party's. Remember in a 2 party system each side wants to minimize the perceived differences. But, if a 3rd party gains support one of the major party's will generally add those ideas to the platform.

Most recently is probably Libertarian > Tea Party. Not that they really had much impact, but people paid lip-service to the ideas.

If you vote Socialist or Tea Party, the Democrats / Republicans lost your vote and have the stats to back it up.

Even if you disagree with the system, vote for whoever is most aligned with your values. Someone will want your vote and your decision may impact future campaigns.

> If you vote Socialist or Tea Party, the Democrats / Republicans lost your vote and have the stats to back it up.

The Tea Party isn't an actual party that fields candidates, its a right-wing grassroots (or astroturf, depending on who you listen to) organization that mostly backs Republican candidates, and mostly serves to push the Republicans on certain issues. If you vote for a Tea Party-backed candidates, a Republican has won your vote, not lost it.

> Remember in a 2 party system each side wants to minimize the perceived differences.

I don't know that I agree. In practice, it's hardly happening (look at the Republicans and Democrats; at Trump and Clinton), and I don't see why it would happen.

Trump and Clinton are basically still at the primary stage where people have actual choices. You can expect a push to center fairly soon. They don't want to give voters issue whiplash so they generally transition though to more centrist message.

Ideally candidates want to avoid alienating their base, but they also can't pick up more voters by pandering to them. So, everyone tries to appeal to independents and not energize their opponents base. The other strategy to to fight dirty which tends to suppress voter turnout, but that can easily backfire in a presidential election.

This also often results in coded language. Which lets you target messages to people that care about an issue without generally annoying other people.

> How do you intend to get people like me to vote?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11715896

People like you are quite rare. Most people will vote for the lesser of two evils once they hit some level of disgust.

If you read their methodology, they are trying to reach a large group first. I seems someone as rare as you doesn't matter when thousands of easy votes are still out there. Even then they may fix something else on the way to voter turnout of 80% or 90% that may be appealing to you.

So, you're asking if democracy is a popularity contest? Are you suggesting it's not?

Stop voting for someone and start voting against someone. Pick the least worst candidate and give them your vote.

It's sort of the train switch moral question. If you hate them both but hate one slight more, voting for the lesser hated one makes you morally responsible for the shit they cause in some peoples' view (as opposed to being a bystander).

No by not voting you are implicitly giving them half a vote each. You don't get to opt out of the decision of who wins by not voting.

Let's say hypothetically your two options to vote for have the same motives but take different stances on relatively unimportant issues. The issues that actually matter aren't discussed. The only issues that are discussed are the ones that stir up people's emotions. By voting you are just supporting this system and saying everything is okay. "Oh, look. 90% voter turnout. Everything is great."

I'd much rather not have my vote counted then vote for someone I despise. "Hmm, 10% voter turnout. Something must be wrong."

Encouraging people to vote for a person they don't like just because they don't dislike them quite as much as the other person sets a very bad precedent.

> I'd much rather not have my vote counted then vote for someone I despise. "Hmm, 10% voter turnout. Something must be wrong."

Empirically, low turnout as a signal that something is wrong which provokes some kind of change to correct it doesn't work very well.

> Encouraging people to vote for a person they don't like just because they don't dislike them quite as much as the other person sets a very bad precedent.

Encouraging people to not vote because eventually that will signal that something is wrong and produce positive change is a lot worse.

Vote-for-one voting is still a ranked-preference method, its just one with only two ranks, and a restriction that only one candidate can be put in the first rank. It provides some (though often less than you'd like) input into social decisionmaking.

Abstention, in any voting system, is simply expressing absolute indifference between the available options -- it doesn't mean that you dislike them all, you could just like them all equally. It provides no useful signal into social decisionmaking. If you are actually indifferent, that's fine, but signaling indifference when what you really want to say is that you are not indifferent, but also not happy with your choices, is probably not what you want.

If you don't like the choices you get at general elections, there are ways to signal that that are far more effective than not voting. (The weakest and most basic of which is voting in primary elections or whatever the equivalent is.)

Encouraging people to vote for a person they don't like just because they don't dislike them quite as much as the other person sets a very bad precedent.

The alternative is the worse candidate get half your vote. If you really are indifferent to which ever candidate wins (i.e. they are both equally bad) then don’t vote. If you do think one is worse than the other then you need to vote to express this opinion.

No it really isn't. This is some very basic math that you are getting completely wrong for the sake of an argument. I'm not increasing either candidates popularity by not voting. If anything, I'm implicitly decreasing both of their popularities.

No really you are getting the maths wrong. Try looking at it from the perspective of the politician. What do they think. This is what matters.

> It's sort of the train switch moral question.

No it isn't.

> It's sort of the train switch moral question.

No it's not. You are stupid.

Personal attacks like this aren't allowed on HN. We ban accounts that do this. Please read the site guidelines and post civilly and substantively, only:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

No that isn't a solution or comprimise I'm comfortable with. I'm not saying itst my responsibility to cut losses and do what's best for everyone. I'm saying this system is broken and I won't be a part of it.

>I won't be a part of it.

You are though, mate. You don't have a choice in the matter.

Yes, I do have a choice to not participate by not voting.

In Soviet Union, party crush people like me since hurts lie that all support them.

...and in Capitalist America, party ignores people like you since indistinguishable from apathy and laziness.

Unless you give up your citizenship and leave the country you are part of the political process. Yes you might believe the system is broken, but by not voting you are saying you don’t care and you are effectively giving half a vote each to the top two candidates. I am sure this is not what you intended to do.

If all the choices on offer are so bad that you can’t choose a candidate to vote against then write in a candidate. In my experience it is very rare that both candidates are equally bad and you can’t choose the least worst option.

To address your first assertion, I am a citizen whether I vote or not. By not voting, I am consciously choosing not to be part of the political process, at least that part of the process where I vouch for a politician by giving them my vote.

And I can't name a single person I want to associate my name with by voting for them.

I think you have a very unusual idea of what voting means. You are not vouching for a politician by voting for them nor are you associated with them in any way. All you are expressing is you rate them higher than their opposition.

You are literally assenting to their views. The word "vote" comes from the same root as "voice." You are speaking up and saying "yes" to them.

As long as you don't leave, you are a part of it. If you aren't acting within your power to.mitigate the problems in it, you are not only part of the system, but a willing contributor to the problems.

If you aren't comfortable with the set of options, actively work to improve the set of options to one you are more comfortable with in the future. But, today, do the best with the options you have.

correct.

If you are paying taxes you are paying for this system, by not voting, you are simply having money stolen from you to have other people do as they see fit.

pretending that your abstainment from voting is somehow going to do anything but give ignorant people more power is senseless for anyone who understands how business/government works.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com