Hacker News Reader

Comment by rsynnott | Hacker News Reader

If making it easier to vote hurts the Republican Party, then presumably it's on the Republican Party to make itself more appealing to people.

Incidentally, this is a VERY common argument against extending the franchise, and extremely self-serving. And also typically incorrect; the Tory party in the UK was terrified of letting all men vote, and then of letting all people vote; a century later, they're still getting elected (though of course they have a somewhat different character now that they have to appeal to people who aren't even male landowners...)

View on HN

>If making it easier to vote hurts the Republican Party, then presumably it's on the Republican Party to make itself more appealing to people.

You could turn this around since its possibly that people who wouldn't normally vote but would vote if they could do a mail in ballot are probably less informed. The Republican Party is afraid that people who are less informed are more likely to vote for the Democratic Party.

> are probably less informed.

How did you get there? I'd assume a lot of people who don't vote in the US don't vote because in many states it is awkward if one has a job.

Also, it doesn't matter how informed voters are; in a democracy they are supposed to be able to vote.

>How did you get there?

It is an assumption. If somebody cared about politics they would be more likely to vote and be informed. If somebody was apathetic about politics they would be less likely to vote and be less likely to keep up with politics.

I haven't seen any studies that looks into how knowledgeable voters vs nonvoters are so I could be wrong. If you know of any studies I would be very interested in reading them.

>I'd assume a lot of people who don't vote in the US don't vote because in many states it is awkward if one has a job.

Its not hard to vote if you have a job. You can spend 10 minutes everyday for a few weeks looking up the issues. On your way to or from work you vote. Ideally you would have written down what you are voting for based on what you looked up so the process will go smoothly and quickly.

I don't know what every area is like but it has taken me like 20 minutes max to actually vote when I go in.

>Also, it doesn't matter how informed voters are; in a democracy they are supposed to be able to vote.

I never said they should not be allowed to vote.

Just because some should be able to vote doesn't mean they actually should vote. I think people who are uninformed are being reckless if they vote and are actually harming democracy.

> Its not hard to vote if you have a job. You can spend 10 minutes everyday for a few weeks looking up the issues. On your way to or from work you vote. Ideally you would have written down what you are voting for based on what you looked up so the process will go smoothly and quickly.

And if you're in a position that requires you show up for work at a certain time or lose your job, and your commute requires 90 minutes of bus rides, and your polling place is not on your bus route, how do you go to your polling place? And should there be some issue with your registration, and you need to go all the way to the county courthouse to file a provisional ballot...

There are plenty of people for whom actually making it to a polling place can be a challenge; just because it's easy for you, who is presumably a salaried worker commuting by car to a workplace that doesn't mind you showing up ±several minutes from regular working hours doesn't mean it's easy for large portions of the population.

>And if you're in a position that requires you show up for work at a certain time or lose your job

You can vote on your way home or wake up early.

>and your commute requires 90 minutes of bus rides, and your polling place is not on your bus route, how do you go to your polling place?

Not sure about all states but California has been allowing people to vote in different polling places then their own.

If this becomes widespread it would eliminate this part of the issue.

>And should there be some issue with your registration, and you need to go all the way to the county courthouse to file a provisional ballot...

This would also be an issue with mail in ballots. Your vote would either not count or you would have to go in.

>There are plenty of people for whom actually making it to a polling place can be a challenge; just because it's easy for you, who is presumably a salaried worker commuting by car to a workplace that doesn't mind you showing up ±several minutes from regular working hours doesn't mean it's easy for large portions of the population.

You can go after work as well. Many polling places are open until 8 or 9.

In California they have the polling places open for multiple days prior to the election as well. I am not sure how wide spread that is outside of California.

Just to be clear I am in favor of making voting day a holiday. Some people still need to work (doctors, grocery stores, police, etc) but they could be given a few hours of paid vacation to vote. I think this is a better solution than mail in ballots.

> You can vote on your way home or wake up early.

That assumes the polls are open when you're going home.

> Not sure about all states but California has been allowing people to vote in different polling places then their own.

This is literally the first time I've heard of a state that allows that. It is not the case in any of the three states I've voted in, and it is quite surprising to me that it is logistically feasible to make work, given that each polling place needs its own ballot design for the local races.

What you're missing as well is the logistics of making it to unusual destinations when you're dependent on often poor-quality bus transit. If bus routes come every half-hour, and only during certain times, inserting an unusual destination onto your itinerary can be challenging. It especially doesn't help if you also live in a state where the polling place is shut down and moved elsewhere because the wrong party votes there.

Okay, so it seems like California has gone to considerable efforts to make it easier to vote (both by keeping its polling places open quite late compared to other places, and by opening them on days outside the election, and by allowing people to vote at alternative locations). You seem okay with _that_ effort to make it easier to vote. So what's wrong with other efforts?

Voter turnout is extremely correlated with income (https://econofact.org/voting-and-income). The more likely explanation is that the Republican party is afraid that more poor people who currently can't afford to vote will suddenly have the resources to do so.

People who are poor are more likely to be working multiple jobs and would have less time to read / watch the news and as such I would be less informed about politics.

Because of that I would say my point would still stand.

People who exclusively watch Fox News have been shown to be less informed about politics than people who watch no news. Guess which party's loyalists watch exclusively Fox News?

Education correlates with increases in Democratic votes. Christianity with Republican ones.

It's not about information, it's about income.

>People who exclusively watch Fox News have been shown to be less informed about politics than people who watch no news.

There is a few issues.

1. That study was from 2012. Things have quite possibly changed since then.

2. The study did not take a look at age. The average Fox News viewer is older than most news shows. Older people have worse memory. A study should look at the various age groups to make sure that it is not just old people not knowing stuff. I am guessing young people who watch Fox are more informed than old people who watch Fox.

3. What is the correlation between Fox News viewers and voters? Its possible that most Fox News people don't actually vote and as such bringing up Fox news is irrelevant to the conversation.

4. What is the correlation between poor people and Fox New views? Since we are talking about poor people it seems like you should have included this.

>Guess which party's loyalists watch exclusively Fox News?

There have been studies that show the majority of Fox News viewers watch news from multiple news sources.

>Education correlates with increases in Democratic votes.

Being educated does not mean informed about politics. Having a bachelors in biology doesn't mean somebody knows anything about various policies.

>Christianity with Republican ones.

In 2014 it was estimated that 84% of democrats believed in God to varying levels. Christianity is common throughout both parties.

>It's not about information, it's about income.

I agree that there is a difference in voting based on income but that does not mean it is because of income.

That may be Republicans' fear (I don't think it is, but for the sake of argument.)

I doubt any Republican using that argument can point to a portion of the Constitution that says "less informed citizens can be arbitrarily denied their right to vote." And they can't because the Constitution is pretty clear that every citizen has the right to vote (excepting with due process) without qualification.

I never suggested (and no mainstream Republican has suggested) they should be denied their right to vote. I think people who are less informed should take it upon themselves to not vote.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com