Hacker News Reader

Comment by gt_ | Hacker News Reader

Obviously a very different country but, in the US, and dependent on implementation details, there could be a lot to gain in terms of voter turn out.

View on HN

It seems weird that people would opt to not vote, because it's slightly convenient. Scandinavian countries have voter turn out in excess of 80%. I don't know about the rest of the Scandinavian countries, but Danish elections are always on Tuesdays, so the queues tend to get a little long after the work day ends.

It's my belief that people will vote, Americans included, if they think it matters. In Denmark fewer than 80% vote for the EU parliament, because very few actually care, even though the EU have a huge influence on our laws, it's just not clear to the public. Similarly I find it more plausible that the average non-voting American simply don't believe voting will have any real impact, rather than choice to stay home because they don't can't spare an hour every two years.

There's a number of things I personally believe the US should do before looking into online voting, if the goal is increase voter turn out. Losing the "winner take all" system for one. Having more parties represented in the congress and senate could help people feeling that they're better represented and that their votes actually matter.

A few comments about voter turn-out in the US... 1. For a large portion of the country, voting really doesn't matter. If you reside in a partisan district (heavily GOP or Demo), even if you are moderate/independent, your single vote might not matter. Since the early 2000s, the GOP has controlled many state governments and redrawn voting districts heavily in their favor. Some of these are being challenged right now (and several have been deemed unlawful by various courts), but it will take many election cycles to undo that damage.

2. In Presidential elections, #1 holds true. But, even worse, due to the electoral college, some states have outsized influence on the outcome. Voters in CA have less voting power than voters in North Dakota. This is due to each state having a minimum number of electors, but a fixed total number.

3. Even ignoring #1 and #2, at the national level, there aren't big differences between the GOP and Dem positions on the things that will impact an average person's day to day life. Elections always come down to "those guys kill babies" or "those guys like to arrest black people". This is less true at the local level, where property taxes, schools, etc actually do impact daily life, but for whatever reason, those elections are less interesting to most people.

4. Voting in the US is during work hours; it is not a holiday. Hourly wage-earners are frequently forced to forgo income to vote. The GOP deliberately understaffs polling places where possible to increase wait times and make voting as tedious as possible. They also regularly attempt to stymy voting through ID programs, misinformation campaigns, intimidation, etc.

5. 24-7 news cycle has many people worn out and frustrated with the system. There is a growing sense of "fuck it, let the whole thing burn" on both sides of the aisle.

Waiting outside on a cold night for hours[1] is more than just "slightly inconvenient," particularly if you have kids and work.

Also, if people are only voting once every 2 years, then they're still opting not to vote in a lot of elections (elections where there vote has a lot more impact).

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/upshot/why-long-voting-li...

The solution surely if to make voting quick and easy; I rarely hear stories of long queues for voting from outside of the US.

In the U.S. it's often an intentional way to suppress the vote of certain groups (the same with voter ID laws[1]). That's the problem with efforts to increase turnout - there are plenty of people in power who want to decrease turnout because it helps them politically.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-ackno...

In Finland there is a period of time, before the election day, during which you can vote at all sorts of locations that have been set up in libraries, supermarkets and other locations people often visit. Pretty much the only reason not to vote is that you could not be bothered to, and I doubt online voting would help much with that.

> Pretty much the only reason not to vote is that you could not be bothered to

I think some people have a principled stance against voting. You may not agree with that but it is another reason why people may still not vote.

That is certainly true. I considered mentioning it, but decided to sort of include it in the "not bothering" category, as I think it might be better to cast an empty (or otherwise invalid) vote to make sure your message is interpreted as such. A mistake, in hindsight.

If you want simplified, convenient voting there's the good old mail service for that. Nailed a decade ago or more in Switzerland. Details may differ by canton, but essentially here is how it works:

About one month before elections, or a referendum (ca. 3 times a year) you get a resealable envelope containing all voting materials.

You cast your votes and put the slips into a sealed envelope (which ensures confidentiality). Then you sign the voter eligibilty card (which also serves as the return address), stick it into the envelope in which you received the materials and drop it into the next letter box.

The materials are checked and the sealed envelopes are stored until voting day, when the votes are counted.

Inconvenience, even if you live out in the total sticks, is really no excuse for not voting in Switzerland.

Can the system be gamed? On a very small scale probably yes if you really, really want to and are really careful. Gaming it on a significant scale? i really don't see how.

Edited for clarity

Postal votes can certainly be gamed on a significant scale. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/1156001...

The US already has problems with election integrity and parties attempting to force differential turnout. E-voting + removal of some polling stations could be a very effective way to keep poorer people from the polls.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com