Hacker News Reader

Comment by RandomLensman | Hacker News Reader

Speed is not a paper thing, it can have results within hours in large countries.

Voting with paper also doesn't have to take all day - a few minutes at a polling station or even less by mail ballot (fraud isn't an issue of paper here).

Also, voting is more than a right, it is exercising authority and that might perhaps need at least some minimum of hurdle in it to get focus.

In terms of broader and more fluid democracy - perhaps, but need to be careful to maintain focus and not end up in something gamified.

View on HN

> but need to be careful to maintain focus and not end up in something gamified.

Sorry, but why?

In my opinion _any_ method to get more people involved in the democratic process is a win.

Because exercising authority on not only one's own future but that of society isn't a game. If the way to get engagement is to hide away consequences and reflection then that is the wrong way to get people to exercise authority responsibly.

I don't agree. Democracy is a process that should involve _all_ opinions and all attitudes, including those of the people who think it's a game.

It looks to me that you're looking at matters with rose tinted glasses to think for one second that the the people handling the current democratic process feel the burden of consequences for it.

Not for one second do I believe that all the people are thinking about the exercise of authority and the consequences thereof when they cast a vote, hence I don't want to further such attitudes.

That aside, you seem to advocate a pretty broad change to laws restricting voting when you want all(!) opinions and attitudes to count. What do you see as template there on how to shape the franchise (e.g., what to do about minimum age, insanity)?

Sorry, I probably got carried away and ended up not making myself understood.

I'm fine with the rules as they are for determining who is recognized to vote.

My intentions were for increasing participation in the demographics which are currently legitimate but are being kept out by external factors (they don't have child minders, they can't take a day off work, ie. the poor), or choosing by themselves to keep out of the process (it's lame to vote, all choices are the same, I have better things to do, ie. the young). You can't have a true democracy if these classes of people are underrepresented in your vote.

Fair.

I just don't see how there is a causal link between these issues and paper ballots. Poor voting implementations could make participation difficult regardless of the voting method, for example. Similarly, political apathy of sorts isn't cured by abstracting away the politics.

Voting day should be a national federal holiday, that would eliminate most concerns about the poor, lack of 'child minders', day of work, etc.

The arguments some people are making in this thread that it -shouldn't- take a day, should only take a 'click', are misguided imo. There is value in slowing down collectively, participating in the process, and seeing the results of that collective action.

Reducing it to a task to be completed as efficiently as possible is horribly misguided -- but eliminating the barriers to participate collectively is conversely an admirable goal, which could easily be mostly solved via federal holiday.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com