Recent submissions

Comment · 2 years ago
Yeah, love these.

In my ideal world we'll add icons for things like "does this need to be a proposition" (i.e. bond-funded measures; some pension props), a visual indicator of the $$ at stake (state/municipal assessment if necessary), progress bars for how much campaign money was spent on each prop/candidate (a nice proxy for how contentious something is).

What other metadata do you think could be useful?

Comment · 2 years ago
Thanks so much for the feedback!

Yeah, echoing another comment: we tried so many rounds of tallies/counts, because visual summaries are so useful from a UX perspective. But there are so many things that quickly start looking partisan. For example: we want to both a) be inclusive and let anyone share their choices as a voter guide, and b) not have visual summaries be a reflection of whatever biased population of users might be using OpenBallot at any time. (Some users gave us early feedback that they thought the visual summary was OpenBallot's recommendation of how they should vote, which we definitely didn't want.)

In general, we're being really conservative with UI atm because we don't want to put ourselves in the position of doing any editorializing that smells partisan. (We even have two sorting methods for guides, one of which is "random", because it's tricky to balance making the big-name guides that people expect discoverable vs hard-coding a sorting method, which we'd prefer not to do, since even that feels partisan).

We've got reams of detailed examples of these types of problems, so if anyone is interested, jump in on Discord! :-)

Comment · 2 years ago
Comment · 2 years ago
These are great suggestions; thank you!
Comment · 2 years ago
Comment · 3 years ago
As for the "why": I'd love to learn about all of the historical and regulatory incentives here. From what I've managed to cobble together, this is partly due to CAFE standards[1], partly due to Section 179 of the US tax code[2], and possibly(??) due to contractor demand[3].

[1]: In 2006, the NHTSA adopted a "footprint" approach to CAFE standards, where fuel efficiency standards are set based on the vehicle's wheelbase multiplied by its average track width. I haven't dug into why this is the case, but people seem to agree that this results in less stringent fuel economy targets for larger-sized vehicles. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy

[2] A key piece of U.S. tax code, Section 179 allows businesses to deduct the full purchase price of qualifying equipment up to $1M(!) For trucks, the vehicle must have a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) over 6000 pounds to qualify for the Section 179 deduction. This incentivizes businesses to purchase larger, heavier trucks. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_179_depreciation_deduc...

[3] A friend told me (citation needed!) that the ability for a truck bed to carry 4x8-foot drywall sheets is often advertised as a selling point (is this true?). I suspect a lot of this is just the US market lusting after "bigger is better", but I'd love to hear anything others know about this.

Anyone have details they could add to this?

Comment · 3 years ago

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton