Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor

Posted Mar 14, 2017 11:07 UTC (Tue) by ShadowTek (guest, #112558)
In reply to: Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor by donbarry
Parent article: Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor

The half that didn't vote because they are too ignorant, apathetic, or demoralized to participate in the process are effectively irrelevant. I'm not concerned with those who simply whine and complain and don't do anything about it. I'm only referring to the percentages of those who are willing and able to fight.

Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor

Posted Mar 14, 2017 12:27 UTC (Tue) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (12 responses)

Ignorant or apathetic, yes. But demoralised? What do you do if you think BOTH the options on offer are a disaster? If there was a "none of the above" option, I think it might win the ballot by a long chalk!!!

Cheers,
Wol

Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor

Posted Mar 14, 2017 16:00 UTC (Tue) by Tara_Li (guest, #26706) [Link] (11 responses)

At least as far as the US Presidential Election - there were more than two choices available in all 50 states - I know the Libertarians managed to get ballot access in all 50 states, and the Greens had it in the majority of the states In most cases, I think people had at least 3-6 candidates available to pick from.

Sure, one can argue that none of the third party candidates had a chance to *win*. But a specific vote for a third party candidate can *not* be spun as "voter apathy" or other suggestions of silent support. And should one of the third parties come out strong enough to force their way into the debates...

The biggest lie of the last few elections has been that not voting for one was the same as voting for the other major candidate. If we can just get past *that* one, maybe we can make some progress on fixing this stuff.

Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor

Posted Mar 15, 2017 1:40 UTC (Wed) by ShadowTek (guest, #112558) [Link] (10 responses)

Exactly. There's always more than just two options, and it's sad that many Americans honestly don't seem to be aware of that most of the time, and so they end up staying home and pouting.

Voting, for any candidate, demonstrates the will be involved in the process, so they have to take you into consideration when they act. Not voting simply demonstrates that you're going to lay down a take whatever they want to give you.

Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor

Posted Mar 15, 2017 15:48 UTC (Wed) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link] (9 responses)

> Voting, for any candidate, demonstrates the will be involved in the process, so they have to take you into consideration when they act. Not voting simply demonstrates that you're going to lay down a take whatever they want to give you.

That's certainly one rather simplistic way of looking at it. Here's an alternative narrative which is at least equally valid:

Voting, for any candidate, demonstrates that you believe in the legitimacy of the system, which empowers the candidate selected by the system even when their positions are diametrically opposed to those of the candidate you voted for. You chose to compete on your opponents' terms and lost; what follows is your fault as much as anyone's. If you had won instead the roles would merely be reversed, with your candidate in power oppressing everyone else.

Not voting demonstrates your principled opposition to the system itself and the very concept of empowering one candidate selected by a plurality of voters to "legitimately" wield force over supporters and opponents alike. Only those who abstained from voting have any right to complain about what the elected candidate(s) do while in office without their consent.

Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor

Posted Mar 15, 2017 16:06 UTC (Wed) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (8 responses)

> Not voting demonstrates your principled opposition to the system itself [...]

No, it simply demonstrates you declined to partcipate, with no implication as to the reason -- which, more often than not, is pure apathy rather than any principled stand.

Those who participate get to influence things. That holds true in politics as much as it holds true in any other human undertaking -- including software development, F/OSS, proprietary, or otherwise.

Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor

Posted Mar 15, 2017 16:31 UTC (Wed) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link] (7 responses)

> No, it simply demonstrates you declined to partcipate, with no implication as to the reason...

Which was the point. You assumed apathy, but that is not the only reason not to participate. At least those who do not participate are not contributing to the problem, even if apathy is their only motivation. All too often, however, one sees comments like yours which claim that abstention implies permission, which is false.

> Those who participate get to influence things.

And that's perfectly fine in every area _except_ politics, because outside of politics that influence is limited to the participants and their property. Those who choose not to participate are not negatively impacted by the actions of those who do. When you support a candidate for political office, regardless of whether you ultimately win or lose, you're attempting to put them in charge of things neither you nor they have any right to control.

Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor

Posted Mar 15, 2017 17:08 UTC (Wed) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link] (6 responses)

There are races other than the Federal level. You don't have to fill in every ballot field and submitting an empty ballot *is* different than not going at all. Voting on local referendum ballots should not be tossed just because you don't like the big ticket race.

Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor

Posted Mar 15, 2017 18:00 UTC (Wed) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link] (5 responses)

> submitting an empty ballot *is* different than not going at all

I might believe that if you can demonstrate a case where filing an empty ballot actually had a substantially different effect from simply staying home. They do count empty/voided ballots (sometimes) but I've never heard of that count actually influencing public policy.

> Voting on local referendum ballots should not be tossed just because you don't like the big ticket race.

Referendums aren't much better. At least they do refer to specific issues and not whatever a candidate might later choose to do once elected, and I wouldn't fault someone who voted for no action (or in favor of repealing an existing one), but you're still contributing undeserved legitimacy to the system itself.

If I get together with some of my friends and put forward a referendum to redistribute your property among my group, you're probably not going to take this very seriously. Assuming you abstained and the referendum passed (after all, participating takes effort and there are an infinite number of possible referendums which could affect you like this), you'll argue that the action is illegitimate despite being supported by a majority of those who voted. However, that argument is harder to make if you actually took the referendum seriously enough to vote on it yourself.

Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor

Posted Mar 15, 2017 18:18 UTC (Wed) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (2 responses)

> If I get together with some of my friends and put forward a referendum to redistribute your property among my group, you're probably not going to take this very seriously.

Given the significant hurdles one must clear to get a referendum on the ballot -- even at the local level -- I'm having a hard time taking you very seriously either.

Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor

Posted Mar 15, 2017 18:59 UTC (Wed) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link] (1 responses)

> Given the significant hurdles one must clear to get a referendum on the ballot -- even at the local level -- I'm having a hard time taking you very seriously either.

On the contrary, it's very easy to get any referendum on a ballot—you just make your own ballot. I never said the referendum was endorsed by a government official. It's just a proposal. But according to some, if you don't go to the effort of voting against the proposal you've implicitly agreed to it.

Even when it comes to officially-endorsed referendums, however, the hurdles aren't nearly high enough, since they don't require to to show that the referendum's supports have the right to implement the measure being proposed. Many referendums which make it onto official ballots, and occasionally even pass, are not substantially different from the one in my example apart from the scale: they propose to seize the property of one group, via taxes or fines, and divide it mainly among the group responsible for the referendum.

Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor

Posted Mar 15, 2017 19:40 UTC (Wed) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]

> On the contrary, it's very easy to get any referendum on a ballot—you just make your own ballot. I never said the referendum was endorsed by a government official. It's just a proposal. But according to some, if you don't go to the effort of voting against the proposal you've implicitly agreed to it.

Okay, you're splitting hairs well past the point of absurdity.

Good day.

Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor

Posted Mar 15, 2017 21:55 UTC (Wed) by sfeam (subscriber, #2841) [Link]

"I might believe that if you can demonstrate a case where filing an empty ballot actually had a substantially different effect from simply staying home. They do count empty/voided ballots (sometimes) but I've never heard of that count actually influencing public policy.

Here's one example. Ballot initiatives around here (USA WA state) that require a simple majority are technically subject to the formal criterion "Majority vote, provided that the vote cast upon the measure equals at least one-third of the total votes cast at such election". Furthermore some types of ballot measures require that the number of ballots returned in a special election (one that is called outside the normal once or twice a year slots) exceed a certain fraction of those counted in the previous general election. So here empty ballots and certainly empty slots on a ballot can affect public policy here. It has happened that a vote clears the required majority of (yes/(yes+no)) votes but fails the added requirement on yes as a fraction of ballots returned.

Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor

Posted Mar 16, 2017 3:56 UTC (Thu) by ShadowTek (guest, #112558) [Link]

> I might believe that if you can demonstrate a case where filing an empty ballot actually had a substantially different effect from simply staying home.

Can you demonstrate a case where staying home had a substantially different effect than voting?

I don't see how that point of view does anyone any good. Maybe if you are protesting the nature of the process itself in a totalitarian country where the elections are known to be rigged, then I could see some logic to your point, but if you live in a more civilized place where you believe that your vote is actually being counted, and the process is reasonably fair, I don't see how this attitude helps to improve anything.

Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor

Posted Mar 14, 2017 13:17 UTC (Tue) by Hstubbs3 (guest, #110747) [Link] (4 responses)

the 1%?
seeing that 'able to fight' doesn't appear to apply to the vast majority any more. the choices were bad,bad, and a bunch of wishful thinking to split to change the outcome..

most of trump supporters would be worse off if that healthcare thing goes through... how's that for even trying to pick a side between bad and bad?

Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor

Posted Mar 15, 2017 1:52 UTC (Wed) by ShadowTek (guest, #112558) [Link] (3 responses)

Trump's "healthcare thing" that he's just released wasn't actually a thing back when he was campaigning. His promise was that Obama's healthcare thing wouldn't be a thing anymore, and that would be that. The voters weren't presented with his latest plan as an option so that they could actually weigh in for or against it at the time, but I digress.

Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor

Posted Mar 15, 2017 3:51 UTC (Wed) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] (2 responses)

Actually, he promised to "repeal and replace" (search YT for the videos of him saying it, if you don't believe me). Replace would suggest something else in the place of the previous thing. Just a point of fact.

When he became president, he went even further and said that the government will pick up the bill for anyone that's uninsured, because he'd save so much money on other things. Again, if you don't believe this, feel free to search YT for clips where he says exactly that.

Here too, please stop

Posted Mar 15, 2017 4:32 UTC (Wed) by jake (editor, #205) [Link]

This is not something that most want to see debated here. There are plenty of other outlets for this kind of "debate". Please stop.

thanks,

jake

Three challenges for the web, according to its inventor

Posted Mar 15, 2017 4:40 UTC (Wed) by ShadowTek (guest, #112558) [Link]

Yeah, you're right. I think what has my brain a little twisted is that this isn't really a repeal that he's proposing right now, and so it isn't really a replace either, it's just a mod. What he's doing isn't what his voters were expecting, and that's essentially what I meant to say in response to the previous comment.