posted
Based on the only votes that count, The Electoral Votes, does it even matter if the average citezen votes, other than in the swing states of Flordia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan?
I soooo can't stand the electoral process in which a person can become elected without carrying more votes than his opponent, but get's the votes in the key states.
And don't get me started on the fact that those who vote in the electoral college aren't bound to vote the way they are expected to.
I become more apathetic towards politcs every year.
posted
I keep fantasizing that the election will be decided by 3 electoral votes and that Montana's 3 votes turned the tide after barely squeaking the winner by at 51%. Then, I could always say that it was my vote that decided the election.
This is assuming, of course, that Walt Brown wins.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except that the non swing states are only secure BECAUSE people are voting there.
You're complaining about the marginal utility of an individual vote, when really what matters is the aggregate contribution of popular votes toward the electoral vote.
posted
Sheesh. We all know the point of voting is that for the next four years, whenever someone complains about a government screw up, you can triumphantly say, "I voted for [insert obscure third party candidate], so it's not my fault!"
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope, no one should even bother. We should just base the election on a gallup poll and be done with it. Saves a lot of money!
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
WOOT! Vote for Pedro! I think we should all get T-shirts that say the same.
(I am so hoping that N.D. and Pedro present at this years Academy Awards or at least the Golden Globes...)
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you are in the minority in your state, although your vote will be counted, it won't mean anything in terms of who gets elected.
A better question is, given that you are in that minority and your say did not decide who was selected, does the government really represent you in any meaningful way? And if not, do you have any obligation to obey the government's will?
(Incidently, none of this has anything to do with the electoral system. If we went by the popular vote, whichever side was in the minority would still not get to select their president.)
posted
That's like the majority believing the law should reflect their beliefs and views and when it doesn't, should the majority support the government/laws.
And if push comes to shove, what should the majority do to have it's views realized in government and law...?
posted
Let's say that the electoral college were abolished and the presidential election were based on a purely popular vote.
By the same logic I'm seeing in this thread, your individual vote wouldn't "count" or have any effect unleess the race was so close that your one vote tipped the balance.
Let's say that one candidate got 10 more votes than the other. In that situation, you could say that no individual vote made a bit of difference as to who was elected.
Of course, this is just silly. You don't have to win for your vote to count.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess if the only thing you're concerned about is the presidential race, you could sit it out in a number of states.
But I'm willing to bet that there's a lot of other stuff on the ballot you might want to make sure you get your vote in on.
Referendums, congressional candidates, state legislature candidates, county officials, etc.
If you sit out election day because you don't think your vote will count when it comes to the presidency, you're also giving up your voice in more local issues as well.
posted
I like the electoral college. I like that the votes are divided up geographically, since many times, the issues that are important to those, say in the middle of the country, are very different from the issues to those in California and New York. Take a look at a map that either divides up the states (or even better, the counties) of the U.S. into states (or counties) that went to Bush or Gore in the last election. Bush dominated over the entire country by a LARGE margin, enough that the really high population areas (usually near the coasts) weren't enough to swing the election.
It doesn't bother me that Gore got more popular votes. I like that we have a system that every once in a while (and rarely) a presidential election is decided by the people in the middle.
I also think it's pretty darn neat that the electoral college can vote however they want to. I've never heard of them actually doing that, but I think it would be pretty amusing. Just goes to show that the founding fathers didn't have as much faith in the people as we thought. Just in case we're all taken over by some sort of cultish madness, the E.C. will step in and save us from ourselves. Just beautiful.
posted
Want to make 'em shake a bit in the Republican and Democratic parties? Just register Independent.
Vote however you feel, just register independent. Then they can't be so sure of lockdown states and they have to campaign a bit more.
I say make 'em guess where they need to work. And it will also bedevil them when they set about redistricting your state next time.
(Want to know how minute the details are on the political wrangling? Take a look at your state's map for US House of Representatives districts. It's like Jerry and Mander went to work on an etch-a-sketch both in control of one dial...)
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Delegates selected for the ElectoralCollege must vote in the manner prescribed by their individual state legislatures. Since all but two states have winner-takes-all, delegates from 48 states must vote for whichever candidate won a plurality (not majority) of the votes in their states. The remaining two states divide their electoral votes based on the proportional split of their citizens votes. Again, those delegates must vote in accordance to their individual state's dictate.
In other words, being an ElectoralCollege delegate is purely a ceremonial position; mostly awarded to partisan hacks.
posted
Your vote is the same as your voice. Whether or not people listen to you or respect what you say, it is your voice in action.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Edit: If we give up the Electoral College, we cease to be "United STATES" of America, but rather one large America. Forget states rights.
It's like if the U.N. became a one-world government rather than a bunch of united nations.
So, the president is elected by the states, based on the popular vote within those states. Big states already have more votes, so if the little states get together and oppose, yay for them.
posted
When you see the trailer trash that shows up on Jerry Springer and other daytime TV, you're glad that their vote doesn't really count.
Our vote for president doesn't count because we don't have a choice. Both fish came out of the same pond.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: When you see the trailer trash that shows up on Jerry Springer and other daytime TV, you're glad that their vote doesn't really count.
No those are "disenfranchised" voters because our voting booths don't have draft taps and a bowl of peanuts = no reason to go vote.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's overreaching a little to say they must vote in the prescribed manner. 18 states do not require it, most states have minimal penalties for violating it, and no one has ever been prosecuted when they've done it.
quote:Approximately half the states and the District of Columbia have enacted statutes that require electors to pledge themselves to vote for their party's nominee. These statutes take various different forms. Only a few impose any penalty for violation, and these penalties generally are light. No faithless elector ever has been prosecuted under one of these statutes.
quote:In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court in Ray v. Blair, a five to two decision, held that the U.S. Constitution does not prevent a political party from requiring elector candidates in its primary to pledge support for its presidential and vice presidential nominees. Accordingly, the Court reversed a writ of mandamus requiring Alabama's Democratic Party from certifying an elector candidate who refused to sign the pledge. The Court reasoned that the Party was free to require a pledge in the absence of any language in Article II of the Constitution or the Twelfth Amendment that would forbid such a pledge. Moreover, the Court referred to the long tradition of electors supporting their party's nominee. The Court also pointed out that the pledge was only a condition of candidacy in the primary, although the Court hinted that it would reach the same conclusion even if the restraint were imposed upon electors after their selection. The Court did not address the question of sanctions for violation of the pledge.
quote:Even if electors may vote freely, with or without state restrictions, there is the possibility that Congress might reject the vote of any elector who failed to support her party's nominee, particularly if the elector had formally pledged such support pursuant to state law. A federal statute, the Electoral Count Act of 1887 (the same statute that was at issue in part in the recent U.S. Supreme Court litigation), provides that Congress must count those votes that it determines to have been "regularly given."
...
When, however, a state (unlike North Carolina in 1968) has a law prohibiting defection by electors, Congress or a court could much more easily interpret the phrase "regularly given" to permit Congress to reject the vote of a faithless elector.
The effect of the selection process, however, is that it IS mostly a ceremonial position, and it DOES go mostly to part hacks. In fact, party loyalty is arguably the most important attribute of an elector to a party.
That idea would appeal to our sense of national pride wouldn't it? Where did you hear that we defied the U.N.?
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you're saying that taking out Saddaam and reforming Iraq's government was a home-grown idea, set forth by G.W. Bush and opposed by the U.N., rather than being one of the top five items on the U.N.'s agenda?
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I remember...didn't Regan get a vote for president when he was just a governer? Before he even ran...I think one delagate from California voted for him....
posted
Living in Indiana kind of makes my vote pointless when it comes to the Presedential election. I have to admitt, I don't really mind, I don't want to vote for either of the canidates, and not living in a battleground state gives me a lot more free of a concious to vote for someone else.
quote: Want to make 'em shake a bit in the Republican and Democratic parties? Just register Independent.
I have been registered as an independent for the last fourteen years. This year, after the election, I will change that. Among the reasons why is the fact that I am tired of being disenfranchised when it comes to selecting the candidates I get to vote from. People who register as independent (like me) play a role in the prevention of moderate candidates from winning their parties' nominations.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed, Icarus. In fact, ideally, you should register as a member of the party you don't normally vote for, so that you have a choice between two real potential candidates. (And people on the other side have none!) Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure what you mean, but for the longest time I was planning on registering for whatever party was not an incumbent in the next major election (governor, for instance), and switching party affiliations like dirty underwear.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Simple, Icarus...Register as a member of the party you like least, and vote in the primaries for the person who most closely matches your views. Then you will have two candidates remotely close to how you think and you can pick whichever you think comes closest.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. Gotcha. Not too different from my old plan. I was thinking, though, that generally there are only primaries for one of the parties.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nods* There is that problem in a lot of states. For instance, the Republican party has tended to be nearly nonexistent in Kentucky.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:the issues that are important to those, say in the middle of the country, are very different from the issues to those in California and New York
The problem I see with the electoral college is that the issues that are important in Upstate New York are very different then the issues down state. I wish the electoral votes were given out by congressional district rather than by the state as a whole. This would give the very conservative Upstaters a chance to actually feel like their vote “matters.”
New York has a lot of electoral votes and I don’t feel that giving them out as a whole really reflects the way the entire state feels. Maybe I’m wrong and all the votes would still go the same way, but I’d really like the chance to see what would happen
Posts: 48 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: When you see the trailer trash that shows up on Jerry Springer and other daytime TV, you're glad that their vote doesn't really count.
Um. Dude. You. Are. So. Giving. Utah. A. Bad. Name.
That's the magic of the one man one vote system, ALL votes are equal, not matter who or where you are.
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Sure, but uninformed or misguided voters are dangerous...better if they just stayed home.
Unfortunately, many special interest groups like to pander to disenfranchised voters, and they turn out to vote in droves, while the average Joes stay home.
I don't know if Utah as a whole has a bad reputation, but Salt Lake City is notorious for disenfranchised voters overwhelming the average Joes in elections.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, I talked this over with my wife and she gave me a great response:
You should vote because elected officials pander to the people that actually vote. That's why health care and social security get discussed. Not because they're so important to the populous, but they're important to those that vote (read: retired people). So if you and more people like you vote, you're more likely to have the things that you care about start becoming important to those that are elelcted.
That argument, along with the local issues one, is what will drive me to the polls next month, however begrudgingly it may be.
posted
Alas, I'm about to go to bed so I'm not going to spend as much time replying as I should, but the Colorado STATE government has a bill going through that will affect this election, determining whether Colorado electoral votes will be winner-take-all or proportional. For everybody that that believes that their vote doesn't count because of the winner-take all system, YOU CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Voting rules and regulations are locally decided, write your state representative, if you start small (within your own community) it is more possible for such legislation to go through the state system.
Second thing, is Instant Runoff voting, you get a list of candidates, and you vote from your best choice to your last (for more information here. this way people aren't stuck with two candidates that they don't like, there's is the capability for more choices, and better representation because you're not just choosing the single person that you think best represents you (like when has that ever happened). (note that San Fran just started IRV, so it is possible), it's also a way to do away with costy primaries in small communities and allowing for diversity in candidates.
quote: I also think it's pretty darn neat that the electoral college can vote however they want to. I've never heard of them actually doing that, but I think it would be pretty amusing. Just goes to show that the founding fathers didn't have as much faith in the people as we thought. Just in case we're all taken over by some sort of cultish madness, the E.C. will step in and save us from ourselves. Just beautiful.
In the 2000 election, DC went to Gore (no surprise there). One of our electors, however, refused to cast a ballot in protest of our lack of representation in Congress.
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm not sure what you mean, but for the longest time I was planning on registering for whatever party was not an incumbent in the next major election (governor, for instance), and switching party affiliations like dirty underwear.
I'd just like to say that I'm disturbed that Icarus only changes his underwear every 4 years.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Personally I think the only reason we are still allowed to vote in this country is because it creates buy-in.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
The Electoral College's purpose is two fold. It is a buffer against direct democracy and it ensures the sovereignty of States. It is part of the Great Compromise. We are not a pure democracy… we are a democratic-republic, i.e. we use democracy to elect or cast out the leaders of the Republic. We function by the idea of Majority rule with Minority rights. It is selfish to abandon the system of voting just because you don’t get your own personal way. What happens if your enemy had that power? You wouldn't like it very much. Decisions on policy are spread across every citizen. And I also look at it this way, that if you don’t vote you give more power to me. Thank you. But I also think that if you don't vote and you truly believe the system is corrupt AND you don't take up arms to save yourself, your family, your fellow man from what you see as tyranny… then you accept that you are a slave. And I don't want to hang out with willing slaves.
[ October 06, 2004, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So have the questions have objective answers or even have it multiple choice so machines could grade it.
Posts: 853 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Just in case we're all taken over by some sort of cultish madness, the E.C. will step in and save us from ourselves. Just beautiful. ![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
