Your Vote Doesnt Count!

i dont vote, because honestly your vote doesnt count,

the president is not elected by how many people voted for him, its the number of people in certain states, the electoral college is whack, and the most ineffective way of choosing a candidate, why should the votes in California count more than the votes in Nebraska?
here are the totals for the 2008 election, in both the popular and electoral votes

Popular VoteTotal 66,882,23/53.0%-Obama 58,343,67/46.0%-McCain = 1.15

Electoral Vote 365 for Obama 173 for McCain
=2.1

so according to the Electoral college Obama got 2.1 times more votes than McCain, but really, only 1.15 times, more people actually voted for Obama. its a fraud, like i said

your vote doesn't count for crap the electoral college makes no sense what so ever

what do you think?

[edit on 3/9/2010 by l neXus l]

I think the 2000 elections showed that the electorial college system is crap frankly.

the philosophy is neat, but the execution is broken. I say we just go on popular vote and simply remove the electorial college

i second, third, fourth, fith, and sixth that comment

More attempts at Mob Rule..

It is important to understand that we are NOT strictly a Democracy.

We are a Representative Republic.

As such the Electoral College was instituted to ensure that each President is not elected by the sole pressure of the large population centers.

If all of our government decisions were decided by majority, or more accurately Mob Rule, what opportunities do the Minorities have? I'll answer that.. None.

If you remove the Electoral College, there will be no reason for the rural population to even go vote. States like SC, MT, WY etc, will have no input whatsoever.

Semper

Well, if the electors that make the final vote through the electoral college felt that there was an injustice in the system...there is nothing stopping them from voting opposite of the state they represent. No system is perfect...even popular vote.

It's funny, I have heard this argument for as long as I can remember. It's usually the Dems complaining about this after a Rep. is elected OR it's the Reps complaining after the Dems win.

If we are going to change this part of the constitution, based upon it's outdated nature...then look out...we might as well go ahead and give up that outdated right to bear arms or free speech.

Be careful what you ask for because you just might get it

semper i never looked at it that way, thanks for the insight

I am hoping that the apathetic majority gets off their collective arses and exercise their right to vote this season...

pipe dream? maybe..

I will hold on to that glimmer of hope, there has been some good examples recently of voters making a difference.

Register and exercise your right.

Anyone wanting to ensure the more populous states control 100% of the process should be in favor of this. You think any candidate will take the time to care what anyone in South Dakota or Rhode Island thinks, if it was a straight popular vote count?

States' rights have been seriously eroding for years. Now I know the term "states' rights" can have some negative connotation, but I mean it in a sense of making the power in the nation less central in nature. We have these really cool 50 laboratories called "states" that are an ideal potential proving grounds, if we'd allow it to be used.

Now I can think of a good many things that I think would improve the process, but a direct popular vote election for president isn't one of them.

Bad idea

reply to post by semperfortis


For the most part, I understand the theory of mob-rule. However, on the flip side the electoral college makes it no even neccesary to worry about a state like Wyoming in the first place either...

It is possible to win the election by winning eleven states and disregarding the rest of the country. If one ticket were to take California (55 votes), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27), Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), Georgia (15), New Jersey (15), and North Carolina (15), that ticket would have 271 votes, which would be enough to win.

Source

Now tell me how only needing the popular vote, even if by a margin of one vote in each of those states, is fair to the remaining 39 states?

i still have a problem with the electoral college, it doesnt make any sense to me at all

reply to post by CalibratedZeus


It's not fair...

And guess what? It is never going to be. A perfect system is not possible.

The EC is just as close as we can get it short of Mob Rule, which most experts agree would be a disaster for things like civil rights.

We may yet see a better and more equitable system as the technology advances, but as things stand, this is the best there is..

Semper

Everyone does understand that there is no guaranteed Right to get to vote in a general election?

The original set up was for the legislature to vote in a president.

Semper

reply to post by CalibratedZeus


I'll answer that question if you can tell me how likely it is that any candidate would be so sure to of victory in each of those 11 states that they would completely ignore the other 39 states during the campaign process.

A mathematical possibility but in no means a likely strategy.

Colorado does things a little different now. Instead of winner take all (because each candidate's party or representative body choses their own group of electors to the EC in the event they win the popular vote of the state).

In Colorado the electoral votes are split as evenly as possible to reflect the split of the popular vote.

The idea behind the Electoral College is that so no buffoon that would wreck the country was elected to the Presidency because of the sway of the public with his charisma. That the electors would seriously study the candidates and only vote for the most right person for the job. Obviously that idea doesn't work too well when the winning party selects the electors. (which are generally little old ladies that would never vote against the party in a million years...although it has happened a few times).

What would be better would be a lottery of registered votes to be an elector for that year's EC. That these individuals would be encouraged to vote as representative of the state's popular vote with consideration to the ability of the candidate. Of course that leads to other problems as well, but it beats the winner take all that we have now.

I'm all for a three way event based on intelligent debate, ability to whip Congress in to line and the ever popular Battle Royale (yes over the top rope) among all the contestants. After which a vote will be taken if there is not a clear 2 out 3 winner. It would trim the primary and electoral season down quite a bit.


[edit on 9-3-2010 by Ahabstar]

A shameless plug for my thread I guess...but it says more than about my views on this subject than this reply.

Would the evidence convict you?

I agree with semperfortis and JacKatMtn. Go vote.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
I say we just go on popular vote and simply remove the electorial college

So like minded and densely populated urban centers rule the nation?

As it is with states like NY and CA the cities run the state by virtue of population density. An urban population that is miserable, stacked like chickens in cages and dependent upon the system. They completely steamroll the rural populations.

Popular vote alone would ensure that NY, CA, MA and NJ run the lives of everyone in 'flyover' country.

The best thing for everyone would be complete dissolution of the fed and the states. A county is about as large a manageable collection of people can be while ensuring nobody has their liberty trampled on. Even then I have lived in some counties that are still too large.

Every layer of government is another obstacle for liberty. From the neighborhood block captain all the way up to the POTUS.

i agree that you should vote i just wish your vote would count for a little more, maybe i was a little harsh in my OP, im just mad at the United States right now

True democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. Representative Democracy gives the sheep an AR-15 as a voice in the matter. The Electoral College prevents New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, and other major urban areas from forcing their will on the rest of the country. If you really want to see your vote not matter, change the current system. Most of the country would be disenfranchised.

Originally posted by mrbarber
... If you really want to see your vote not matter, change the current system.

I second that! Any change made to the election process would no doubt be legislated by career politicians so that it favored the politicians...not the people.

reply to post by SaturnFX


What you're saying then is this: The east coast, with the addition of California (the Bay Area/L.A.), along with Texas and Illinois (Chicago), should be the one's to elect the President? The electoral college, with all it's imperfections, give the small states, such as my own of Washington, a much greater say. Where is the main population bases of this country?

Check your population figures, then how those areas voted, as opposed to say the Western states, historically. Then tell me again, the electoral college should be discarded...