Do we really want those that are so half-hearted about the process that they need great efforts to cajole them to actually participating in our elections? How much time and effort do you think someone that has to be given so many "easy buttons" to become part of the process will dedicate to understanding the issues, the candidates, and the possible future outcomes? I don't think many.
I think voting should be open to anyone that wants to put some reasonable effort into being part of the process. For example, maybe you should have to go to your county clerk's office in person to register. Voting should be in person. Yes, for those that are home-bound or have legitimate extenuating circumstances, they should be allowed to vote or register by mail... but if you're otherwise able and not willing to go to some reasonable effort to participate, you likely aren't going to be the model of an "informed voter" either.
The only reason I think politicians and activists go down this road to making it easier to vote is because they want an electorate that doesn't think too much nor care too much. They want a docile electorate more likely to rubber stamp ideas than submit them to scrutiny. This is about undermining the functioning of democratic systems, not expanding them.... or it's just ill considered.
There are a wide variety of reasons as to why registering to vote should be as easy as possible, and most of them have nothing to do with convincing people who don't want to vote to vote (I mean, ideally, we should live in a society that automatically registers everyone by default. But we're not quite there yet).
People who work 9-5 jobs that are paid hourly (or people currently in school, and go to school during those hours) literally lose money by taking time off to go to a government building and do these things in person, since government buildings operate 9-5 as well (some even open late/close early, because government).
Currently, the people most-likely to vote are either old (retired, with the free-time available to go do these things at their convenience), or middle-to-upper class salary workers (who won't be penalized for taking time off to go do these things).
While the people least-likely to vote are young people and people who work lower to lower-middle class hourly jobs, who cannot afford to take time off to register/vote. Most states don't even guarantee you paid time off to vote on election days.
If people don't want/care to vote, no amount of simplifying is going to make them do it. But people who want to vote shouldn't have anything standing in their way.
But people who want to vote shouldn't have anything standing in their way.
I agree in principle, but in practice for the white millennials this site seems aimed at, there's not much in their way. And then there's a whole section of the page trying to convince people to vote in the first place, to vote for the down-ballot, etc.
In that context, sbuttgereit's question seems valid.
> for the white millennials this site seems aimed at, there's not much in their way
I don't know what about our product makes you think that we're specifically targeting white people, but, even if we were, millennials (even ones from populations that are disproportionately of a privileged background) are overwhelmingly either currently in school, or under-employed . "Under-employed," meaning that they tend to work part-time, hourly jobs, rather than being able to secure salaried positions (even for ones with higher degrees).
As I've said before, they literally do not have time--and will, in fact, be put at a financial burden, if they chose to--to take off time to vote. Which is why we have services like "Time off to Vote" (https://www.voteplz.org/guide/get-time-off/) to help people know their rights, as well as easy-to-understand information about getting absentee ballots and voting early.
We also have an entire resource for helping people with criminal pasts know their rights (https://www.voteplz.org/register/#/felony-help/), which pretty much no one makes straight-forward. If you look at other registration sites, they tend to say something along the lines of, "don't use us if you've ever committed a crime," because they don't feel like putting in the effort to help that demographic. Even the National Voter Registration form uses language that can be misinterpreted as meaning that people who have been to jail automatically lose their rights forever.
Like I said, making it easier for people to vote (and giving them resources to get informed) is not making people who don't want to vote, vote. It's helping people who want to make a difference get the resources to make a difference.
> Like I said, making it easier for people to vote (and giving them resources to get informed) is not making people who don't want to vote, vote. It's helping people who want to make a difference get the resources to make a difference.
Your comment is a direct response to this observation:
> And then there's a whole section of the page trying to convince people to vote in the first place, to vote for the down-ballot, etc.
Either I missed something somewhere, or you did.
And sure, you're not sama, but here's what he said on this subject, directly upthread from you, speaking for you ("all the organizations working on this"):
> we have a long, long way to go to 100% voter turnout, and all the organizations working on this share the same fundamental goal.
If your goal is 100% voter turnout, that very much is making people who don't want to vote, vote. It is not helping people who already want to vote to vote. The same goes for the marketing copy on your website aiming to convince people who don't want to that they really should vote.
don't know what about our product makes you think that we're specifically targeting white people, but, even if we were
If you were, it would be terrible and racist, considering the much more serious impediments people of racial minorities tend to have to vote. But I wasn't saying that, just that it was very focused on them, presumably because most or all of the people you have writing the copy are white millennials, and probably all men. Try to scrounge up some other people to look at the site.
As for the impediments, again, if you're not lily-white, all those things go double, with more barriers, besides. Meanwhile, I've been a white student and under-employed in a recession while voting religiously, and it was never that hard.
Selecting for voters who are willing to navigate a bureaucracy and jump through arbitrary hoops to vote does not give you "informed" voters, just voters with a lot of time on their hands.
Also, who decides what circumstance is legitimate and what isn't? Why should some circumstances be accommodated but not others?
Every single time people have tried to restrict who "should" vote and who "shouldn't" the rules have been abused for the purposes of bigotry. Poll taxes, literacy tests, id requirements, etc.
> Selecting for voters who are willing to navigate a bureaucracy and jump through arbitrary hoops to vote does not give you "informed" voters, just voters with a lot of time on their hands.
I agree with you in principle, but the vast majority of people I've met who don't vote are not just "too busy". They are usually just apathetic. They don't care about politics, they don't want to read and learn. I say we're better off without them voting.
Correct. I don't vote and I'm reasonably well informed. I sit on our city's economic development and planning board, and work with state legislators in our community so I'm aware of how the system works - or doesn't -irrespective of who is in office.
> For example, maybe you should have to go to your county clerk's office in person to register. Voting should be in person. Yes, for those that are home-bound or have legitimate extenuating circumstances, they should be allowed to vote or register by mail... but if you're otherwise able and not willing to go to some reasonable effort to participate, you likely aren't going to be the model of an "informed voter" either.
I really encourage you to reread this carefully, and with an open mind. It absolutely reeks of privilege.
A person can be politically informed, able-bodied, and unable to take a day off work to stand in line for hours at the polls. Even if their state allows them to take paid leave, and many don't, it's a privileged position to be able to exercise that right without fear of repercussions.
Republicans have used similar arguments to support their attempts at voter suppression in e.g. North Carolina, in which they restricted early voting, tightened voter ID laws, and otherwise made it harder for underprivileged people to vote. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/inside-th...
If I were being cynical, I might suggest that at best it sounds like you're uninformed about privilege and class in America, and maybe that should disqualify you from being able to vote.
Maybe that idea that I might try to judge your fitness to vote based on something as superficial as a post on HN is offensive to you. But then perhaps you'll consider whether it's offensive that you would judge the fitness of others' to vote on something as similarly superficial their ability to take time off working multiple jobs, childcare, caring for a parent, night school, or whatever to demonstrate their commitment to the democratic process.
You might have a point if voting were equally inconvenient for everyone. But actually, it's convenient for some and inconvenient for others.
Think about taking public transportation in a rural area where transit sucks versus driving. The people who take public transit have to take more time to vote (let's say an extra half hour each way) than those who can drive, who in turn have to be more dedicated than the people who live right next to the polling station and just walk over.
Furthermore, this level of convenience can be manipulated to get the results you want.
From a data quality point of view, we'd probably be better off with some kind of unbiased random sampling, but that goes against tradition.
In addition to what everyone else has said, there's no reason to assume that willingness/ability to go through a cumbersome in-person registration process is a good predictor of voter informativeness.
Personally, I'm a bit of a political junky. I regularly read political news, have volunteered on campaigns, and would consider myself to be a very well-informed voter. Yet I also find registration and actually voting very annoying, since I can be informed digitally (while traveling, etc.) but the actual mechanics of voting are archaic.
There is no direct or causal connection; at least I've no studies to cite or similar. It's common sense. Take any activity and I bet you will find that those that explicitly seek to engage in that activity will perform it better than those that come across it by happenstance. In voting that means understanding what you are voting for/against.
Do you you really think that a passive participant in an activity performs at a similar level to an engaged one?
It is not common sense to think that the amount of patience someone has for waiting in line on a particular day is a good heuristic for how informed they are.
I think voting should be open to anyone that wants to put some reasonable effort into being part of the process. For example, maybe you should have to go to your county clerk's office in person to register. Voting should be in person. Yes, for those that are home-bound or have legitimate extenuating circumstances, they should be allowed to vote or register by mail... but if you're otherwise able and not willing to go to some reasonable effort to participate, you likely aren't going to be the model of an "informed voter" either.
The only reason I think politicians and activists go down this road to making it easier to vote is because they want an electorate that doesn't think too much nor care too much. They want a docile electorate more likely to rubber stamp ideas than submit them to scrutiny. This is about undermining the functioning of democratic systems, not expanding them.... or it's just ill considered.