News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 10... by jimrandomh on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @04:18PM (#11717048)
There's a very important reason to do this which no one has brought up. US elections have a lot of vote-suppression shenanigans; in some noteworthy cases (including the 2000 Presidential election), fraudulently removing voter registrations, understaffing and obstructing poll locations changed the outcome. This sort of thing becomes much more difficult to execute and much more difficult to get away with if there's an expectation of 100% turnout, as in countries which have mandatory voting; large asymmetric chunks of the population failing to reach the polls no longer look plausibly innocent. I think mandatory voting is worth having for that reason alone, in addition to the other reasons.
Re:Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 10... by debracleaver on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @04:50PM (#11717291)
Jim, shenanigans is the word that comes to mind for me as well. I've yet to meet this mythical "apathetic American" that people talk about, but I've met tons of people who were prevented from voting by administrative incompetence (at best) and what appeared to be deliberate attempts to prevent citizens from casting ballots.

Here's an fun example: 7 out of 9 of the states that were prohibited from changing their voting laws under the VRA of 1965 immediately passed restrictive laws once the VRA was gutted.

Re:Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 10... by hackuser on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @07:47PM (#11718575)
> 7 out of 9 of the states that were prohibited from changing their voting laws under the VRA of 1965 immediately passed restrictive laws once the VRA was gutted.

Here's a question that I'm not sure you can answer publicly: Ideally, support for voting should be non-partisan, and everyone seems to want to operate on that principle (including Vote.org).

But what if it is a partisan issue? What if the most important problem is that one party truly opposes voter turnout? Personally, I think that's the case, and I think our failure to address the real problem, for whatever idealistic reasons, is the primary reason we make so little progress.

Re:Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 10... by lotharbot on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @05:33PM (#11717652)
I've met plenty of people who don't vote for reasons of apathy. Especially in midterms.

I also have one friend who always casts a blank ballot, as a matter o principle.

Re:Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 10... by nommm-nommm on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @05:08PM (#11717438)
>I've yet to meet this mythical "apathetic American" that people talk about

Well now you have.

Re:Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 10... by jeremyt on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @06:00PM (#11717854)
You've never met an American apathetic about voting? Are you from a foreign country?
Re:Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 10... by sbuttgereit on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @05:07PM (#11717422)
Put a gun to people's head to vote? I can think of few things more morally reprehensible than that. An individual should determine how, and if, they participate in civic life for themselves. The view that sees individuals as simply so much chattel labor existing for the benefit of whichever bureaucrats running the state at a given moment is simply unsupportable by any sort of real logic. To give you warm and fuzzies that vote-suppression did not occur is insufficient cause to demand that I participate in a system that, where I live, has no effective choices in any election cycle and frequently poses questions which simply should not be open to democratic opinion at the get go.

Your view is also terribly naive. If you get your way, what prevents the "shenanigans" from simply moving to another part of the process, say before the vote? Also, I would simply turn in a blank or random ballot because playing along with the sham of legitimizing the outcomes of questions where there is no choice is not tenable: do we stop secret balloting to prevent my antics? Do we evaluate the votes I make to determine whether or not I'm being a good citizen?

The big lie of much of "democracy" is, as a magician once put it, "When I cut the cards, I let you glimpse a few different faces. You conclude the deck contains 52 different cards (No. 1—Pattern recognition). You think you’ve made a choice, just as when you choose between two candidates preselected by entrenched political parties (No. 7—Choice is not freedom)."

Your proposal simply puts the threat of force to those that would not otherwise play the charade.

Re:Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 10... by jimrandomh on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @08:49PM (#11718895)
The other parts of the process also have shenanigans, yes. Those are worth fighting against, too. I have no problem with people making protest votes and am genuinely confused by your implication that I would have a problem with people turning in blank or random ballots.
Re:Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 10... by sbuttgereit on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @10:01PM (#11719203)
I'm confused that you think that you have the right to tell me what to do. You don't. Not even by proxy to some "authority".
Re:Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 10... by cinquemb on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @10:51PM (#11719381)
I find it kind of funny… as if "politics" can only decided by being prodded like chattel to voting booths.

History of man shows many effective ways of influencing governing systems on many different levels, some more violent than others… and with modern technology ways people could only imagine of in the distant past are possible (beyond the present skinner box of political theater most elections are, and arguably to some degree or another, have always been), of which most people (forget about those who even show up to a voting booth) will never be interested/knowledgeable on/have direct means to do anything about.