I've been following (somewhat) the political discussions and I find myself wondering if voting even really matters much anymore. With the presidency being decided by electoral college vote how much does the popular vote really count for anymore? What if we could organize everyone to boycott the vote and literally no one showed up.
Just some random thoughts this afternoon....
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
Candidates and their spouses can vote. Even should you count out everyone involved with the candidates and their campaigns, it's a bit silly. The people that agreed to 'boycot' would have too much incentive to cheat, and vote anyway.
That said, it would presumably be treated by whatever statute is in place to resolve ties.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:With the presidency being decided by electoral college vote how much does the popular vote really count for anymore?
It still counts a lot, obviously, but it's true that the electoral college creates some severe problems with voter apathy and the inequality of votes.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
As measured by electoral votes per million inhabitants my home state, New Jersey, gets around 1.8 (iirc) while Wyoming gets around 6.1
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:With the presidency being decided by electoral college vote how much does the popular vote really count for anymore?
Anymore? As opposed to generations past, when the presidency was decided in exactly the same way?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'd say it still matters. Only twice in US history has a president been elected without a majority of the popular vote, and while I think our entire system is a piece of crap joke, of the choices we DO have, by and large the voice of the people is respected...once every four years .
Posted by Abyss (Member # 3086) on :
quote:As measured by electoral votes per million inhabitants my home state, New Jersey, gets around 1.8 (iirc) while Wyoming gets around 6.1
It's almost as if someone was trying to strike a balance between big states and small ones!
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Abyss:
quote:As measured by electoral votes per million inhabitants my home state, New Jersey, gets around 1.8 (iirc) while Wyoming gets around 6.1
It's almost as if someone was trying to strike a balance between big states and small ones!
If Plato needed an example of one of his Forms, he could've pointed to that sentence and said "The Form of Sarcasm."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Abyss:
quote:As measured by electoral votes per million inhabitants my home state, New Jersey, gets around 1.8 (iirc) while Wyoming gets around 6.1
It's almost as if someone was trying to strike a balance between big states and small ones!
Reposted from another thread People often get the history and purpose of the electoral college mixed up. Most people will say that it was a compromise to not let the small states be trampled on, and in the 18th century, there was some truth to this, but it's best to understand the context. The Founder were afraid that the population would be too underinformed about the candidates from other states, and would instead simply vote for their home state hero, which would be default mean that larger states voting for their own would mean only larger state candidates would win. You can find evidence for this in the original rules for the electoral college, which stated that electors had to cast TWO votes for president, and the second vote HAD to be for an out of state candidate.
This changed after 1800, when political parties (long shunned and feared as detrimental to democracy) took precedence and power in political circles. They changed it to one vote for president and one vote for VP, giving the House of Reps the power to break deadlocks. This change was in a response to state loyalties taking a backseat to party loyalties. At the time of this revision, no major consideration was given to making the electoral college a direct popular vote because A. The situation hadn't changed much, we were still very spread out and communication wasn't easy, and B. They'd just witnessed what a small segment of the population can do when they don't like the government in France, so they weren't a fan of the people at that moment. Also keep in mind that at this time campaigning was still considered extremely uncouth. They said, 'the office should seek the man, not the man the office.'
The idea of having electors would be that the most well informed of the population would be the electors, and those well informed electors would have information about all the candidates. Keep in mind people didn't get around much back them. A population of more than four million people was spread up and down a thousand mile Atlantic coastline, and communication wasn't lightning fast. Having a small number of people choose the president, but still having that small number elected by a popular vote, was considered a compromise that would keep democracy in tact and at the same time lead to smart, fair choices.
So look at the situation we have today. We have the internet, we have multi hundred million dollar campaigns that cross cross the country. We have air and car travel that blows anything from the 1800's away. We have television and radio, and most home grown candidates can't even get a foot in the door. There's no reason to keep the system as it is when you have a well informed population, and if anything, our current system discourages minority party voting since when in a state with a huge majority of one party, your vote doesn't much matter of all if you're in the minority.
It also severely rules out the importance of smaller states, as candidates throw money at the states with all the electoral votes, and ignores all those little three vote states. So for everyone that says today it gives benefit to the smaller states, I'd say it actually does a hell of a lot more harm than good these days.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Abyss:
quote:As measured by electoral votes per million inhabitants my home state, New Jersey, gets around 1.8 (iirc) while Wyoming gets around 6.1
It's almost as if someone was trying to strike a balance between big states and small ones!
Why is a Wyoming person's opinion more important than mine?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
It's only more important if they are of the prevailing party. Now a dude's vote from Arizona is more important than yours.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
If everyone agreed not to vote, then I'd vote Posted by miamiandy (Member # 8906) on :
If everyone agreed not to vote, I'd write-in someone actually qualified to be our president rather than those running now.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I also haven't detected any boycott-level frustrations from most of the democrats I know. But for real, if both major parties engendered such disgust, we'd wind up with a socialist or libertarian president.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
What would happen if nobody voted? See Pakistan this weekend.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Until the country actually implodes, I don't see us getting up in arms about much of anything.
My brother told me yesterday that 75% of people in a poll said we're headed as a nation in the wrong direction.
And yet still we go about our lives, same ole, same ole. I'm not sure if we're just lazy or too apathetic, but I think it might take something like another draft to get us to the state of disapproval that led to the protests of the 60's and 70's.
I'm not sure if I'm more disappointed in the government or the electorate.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
The common attitude is that one person can't make a difference. The problem is that everyone in the country considers themselves just one person.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Where there are no ballots, bullets rule.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Where there are no ballots, bullets rule.
Time to head to Walmart. Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Absolutely not. We need to get more people out to vote -- not less! We particularly need young people, who are letting old people run the country unchecked.
And in case you missed this part in your social studies class -- we vote for more than just the president. I hate it when people discuss voting as if there is only one vote that matters -- once every four years. Well, the presidency is one position, checked and balanced per our constitution by two other branches of government.
Not only that, but out state and local governments have power and influence over our lives as well. Often, they have more direct impact. Are the new school improvements worth higher property taxes to you? Do you want a new sports arena? Would you like to see a new overpass for the trains to help move traffic along the main stretch through town?
Governors, state legislators, mayors, town councilmen, school board members, etc. have huge sway over your life.
And I haven't even started talking about judges. How many bogus decisions to you hear about, setting precedents in ways we'd rather not see? The judicial branch is very powerful and often overlooked, but voters have the power to confirm or remove judges from the bench.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I honestly believe that the next presidential candidate to openly court the youth vote will win the election. They pay a small amount of lip service to the college aged kids of the country, but offer nothing like the types of promises they offer to older people. Young people don't vote because they think elections have nothing to offer them.
It's too bad, because it's pretty short sighted on their part, as the problems created by today's 30 and 40 somethings (and so on) are going to be fixed and dealt with by todays teens and 20 somethings. The giant debt our nation has, avoiding social security payments, etc, it's all our mess now. But they don't think that far ahead. Of course, politicians don't bother engaging them or trying to get them to vote, because they're perfectly happy with the status quo. Dealing with youth issues will come at a cost, and they would rather not deal with it.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I honestly believe that the next presidential candidate to openly court the youth vote will win the election.
I don't know. In my life, it seems like my parents generation decide the shape of political life, for better or for worse. Politically speaking, the whole world is Romney and Clinton's age. The baby boomers set the agenda, and everyone else argues on one side or the other. I'd like to see a cycle where people born between the years of 1944 and 1956 just backed off, didn't run, didn't throw their money or influence around. I could use a breather from the boomers.
[ November 05, 2007, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
I actually do try to vote in local elections and I do get out and vote for president but it is frustrating because it seems like it really doesn't matter on the larger venue. But then again I'm in the minority (at least in my family) that believes the dems and the repubs have basically the same end goals but take different roads to get there. Of course that is just an opinion based on purely emotional influences.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Boomers Rule! It's our TURN!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You've been saying that since birth, you Boomers.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Boomers Rule! It's our TURN!
You've been having your turn for a few decades now, and look what you've done with it.
Time for Generation X to take over.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
What do young people want? Seems like the guy who's name I can't remember was supposed to bring out the youth vote. You know, the one Kerry campaigned so hard against. The Volvo-driving Hollywood-luvin' Vermont freak show guy.
P.S. Howard Dean. He wanted to care about the young people, but I think Obama is much more convincing. Well, to me.
Posted by Iain (Member # 9899) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Where there are no ballots, bullets rule.
Time to break out the old Enfield. Oh wait, I get one shot then I have to reload. Too bad you can't get good MG42 ammo here any more thanks to idiots that would put it into the wrong guns and then sue after said wrong gun blew up.
Serious note: Being a young person, I agree about the boomers screwing things up. The biggest problem is that none of the candidates are even remotely qualified.
The way I see it, in theory I should vote against the Republican because the Democrat is going to help me as a lower middle class college student having to pay for ten years of school out of my own pocket. If I were rich, I would probably vote Republican because Republicans want to, in theory, let me keep more of my money and oh well for the poor that aren't strong enough to survive.
What gets me is Bubba, sitting in his trailer living off of wellfare supplied by the Democrats, wants to vote Republican because the Republicans will let him keep his gun.
Too bad Bubba's vote really doesn't matter any more, or at least that is the way it seems because it looks like the Democrats are no longer trying to cater to him.
Posted by Iain (Member # 9899) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: What do young people want? Seems like the guy who's name I can't remember was supposed to bring out the youth vote. You know, the one Kerry campaigned so hard against. The Volvo-driving Hollywood-luvin' Vermont freak show guy.
P.S. Howard Dean. He wanted to care about the young people, but I think Obama is much more convincing. Well, to me.
We want peace, more jobs, fewer condos and private beaches, and better surf, or at least the ones around here do.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Where do you live? Florida or California?
Around here we want college to be more affordable and schools to be of higher quality. We care about the environment, we don't want the Boomers running up any more huge bills that they are all going to leave to us after they retire, and we'd like to know that social security, which we're going to pay for, will actually be there when we're old enough to want it. And we'd like to not all be killed because of zealous hyperagressive warmonger politicians.
Boomers are stuck in the past. They won't embrace the future, won't embrace new technology, won't reign in their insane spending, and don't seem to care at all about the generation that will have to pick up the pieces after them.
If I'm wrong, point me to the actions of the Boomers that prove it. We're the generation of Stephen Colbert, and words don't much matter, actions do. Right now all I see is a generation that wants things to be like the 70's, 80's or 90's again, but those days are gone, and it's time to get used to it.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Each generation has about 20-25 years when they are in the position of holding most of the reins of power, when they reach the ages of 50-75. Now it is the boomers. Our time has been here for about ten years. We have 15 years to go. And we will be hard to dislodge early, since we of the World War II Baby Boom generation, are the largest generation in American history.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
All the 30 year-olds I know who carried on about how awful W was didn't bother to go out and vote in the last election. They hated W and thought he would ruin the country, but they couldn't quite manage to do anything about it. I'm supposed to turn the country over to them?
How about we lobby the Boomers, you know, the people who actually show up and do the work, for the things we want? Former hippies should be all for helping the environment and creating greater opportunities for people to live well.
Though I'm never sure what more people want. There's plenty of good paying jobs out there and some combination of on the job experience, VoTech, or college will get most of them for you. But I'm an evil Republican with the mind set that if you value money you should be willing to work for it and sacrifice other things. If you really want to just put in your 40 and spend time on your hobbies or with your family, I don't see where you have room to complain about the money you're not making that the guy putting in 60 does. Everyone makes a choice as to what's important to them and if you're not willing to sacrifice what the rich man has, I don't think you can honestly begrudge him his money.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.