Comment by ipython | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ipython | Hacker News Reader

Perhaps an unpopular opinion on this thread, but this is just a convenient distraction while republican state houses and Secretaries of State across the country erode our real voice - access to the ballot box.

Republicans are suing Twitter to unmask fake cows that post unflattering things about them because, feelings? Death threats and plans to kidnap elected officials? A goddamn noose erected on the steps of the capitol amid the first incursion on that building in something like 200 years? And I’m supposed to empathize?

The whole thing is a mess. Nobody talks to each other. There was another thread I came across - don’t forget where I found it - but people who had put some tough guy face online suddenly weren’t so aggressive once they were face to face.

There is a lot of division but there is common ground to find. It’s hard when the right paints you as literal child eating demons and the left says you are a racist xenophobic asshole, but damnit we need to come together - what’s the alternative????

When there are topics we should truly come together on - enfranchisement comes to mind - we are too busy infighting that we lose sight of the real goal. And that’s how democracies die.

Another unpopular opinion (that I don't strongly hold but often think about) - but isn't a little voter friction a good thing? Voting friction (a little, not a lot) acts like a filter. It filters for voters who want to participate in democracy and make an effort to do so. In other words, I question the assumption that the more frictionless the voting, the healthier the democracy.

For example, if commenting on a website were truly frictionless (i.e. anonymous users could post without an account), the quality of the discussion would go to pot and the signal-to-noise ratio would dramatically deteriorate. A small barrier to entry (sign-in required) increases the quality/signal-to-noise by a large factor even if it "disenfranchises" some people that would have otherwise commented but couldn't because they didn't have time to create an account.

In that same vein, I think that if you make voting too easy you'll increase "noise" of the ballots, since lots of people that otherwise wouldn't have voted are now submitting low-effort ballots with essentially random bubbles filled in (other than perhaps the most prominent candidate). If it's not unreasonable to require users of websites to create an account before they can participate, why is it unreasonable to essentially require the same thing before contributing to the government of a nation?

It's reasonable to have a discussion about voter friction and whether it can be advantageous to democracy. The point of the parent though is that changes to voter laws discriminate in friction; that is, some groups are more affected than others. When friction is applied unevenly, it becomes disenfranchisement.

Any voter friction is an attack on democracy.

What you deem "adequate" friction is just your opinion that only "the right people" can vote.

Maybe that's an opinion that people should have to put on clothes to go vote, but then, if this was actually a lot of people, don't they deserve a societal voice?

Democracy is only democracy when everyone has the vote, because otherwise it's just another variant of the King asking his small council.

Is having a constitution an attack on democracy? It does after all mean that there are times the will of the majority won't be respected.

Fuck it, babies should vote, the ballot they try to eat is their choice.

Fight me XorNot

What would you consider to be “enough” friction? Equating voting to commenting on Internet forums is a bit disingenuous IMO. I mean, if you had to register at your local government internet commenter office at least a few days or even months before commenting, then show up on a given day to comment long hand in person after waiting in line, perhaps you would have a point.

My point is that we already have significant friction built into the process of voting.

I think a more interesting thought experiment is around compulsory voting. Making the incentives work the other way- where you’re expected to participate in the process. I wonder if people would take it more seriously if you had penalties for not participating?

Voting isn't and can't be free in the "throwaway internet comment" sense, since there's always the cost of having to live with whoever wins for however long there term is.

I doubt it helps you achieve your objective of conversation by generalizing extremist actions toward the republicans. Any more than suggesting antifa actions drive the democratic ideology.

I'd argue that (among other things) it's the echoing of this type of polarizing talk that creates the "sides" of the conversation.

Was there something I said that was untrue? We have to have conversations but those conversations have to be grounded in a shared reality. I would be interested to hear about your views on antifa.

I'm not objecting to the veracity of what you wrote. I'm objecting to the immediate framework of political party in which the conversation started. Once the comment is placed into that box, the nature of the discussion changes.

I would draw the discussion lines more around those in power versus the people and would further argue that this model is really the defining conversation of modern politics today.

I don't see requiring an ID to vote as a very big hurdle. I needed to provide a lot more than that to get my COVID vaccine.

For you, it probably isn't. But it isn't like the US makes sure everyone can easily get an ID even if rules state you should be able to get one for free.

The same folks may or may not need to provide more than that to get a Covid vaccine. If they need more, they probably won't get a vaccine. Less, and they will.

This is a question that is highly dependent on culture, history and location. In Europe nobody would bat an eye and agree to that. But the US had malignant actors that tried to exclude people from voting that were not in their camp. It was nothing else than targeted discrimination. So being skeptical is completely warranted, even if you believe that the US has changed. And even then there can still be problems.

It has to do with lacking trust in today's institutions as well as towards the police.

Don’t you also have to register in advance, prove that you are resident and not voting in multiple places ?

I’d love to believe it’s literally just showing up with an ID, but that doesn’t seem realistic to me.

If the requirement for ID was paired together with laws mandating that the ID be free of charge and easy to get by every citizen, I'd agree.

Are there any states that do not provide free IDs for those in need?

A quick google search suggests that it is easier to list the states that do have a provision for free ID than to list the ones that do not.

It is also not that simple, it is not just about cost, there are other barriers to getting identification. Availability of DMV offices, limited hours, etc.

Perhaps we should make passport cards free, and then fund an organization to proactively identify and issue cards to every US citizen who does not already have one. Then we can require that card in order to vote.

Problem, of course, is that the US Constitution makes voting a state problem. So we are probably doomed to continue having some states adding as much friction as possible while others seek to eliminate that friction altogether.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com