Do you care if your vote counts or not?

EDIT: I split this from another thread, because I think the question is general, and not about either one of the candidates (that actually matter)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

you're in lon gisland... well, it really doesn't matter who you vote for, as far as the outcome of the election is concerned.
i mean a single vote has never mattered in the us elections, but it there are degrees of non mattering - one thin is ohio, completely different NY, or ID

---

Not mattering is voting dem in TX, or rep in CA.
That is the biggest flaw in the system imo.
I get the reason for electoral votes, and the different number of them per state.
And since the states get to decide how to vote, they have the right to determine how to organize the electoral college.

But imo it would be a lot fairer to the people to divide the electoral college, representative of the statewide vote, instead of 'winner take all'.
That way, your vote would have importance, even if you are a dem in TX or a rep in CA. And there would be no more counties deciding the outcome of an entire election, just because their last vote determines who gets the entire electoral college of Florida behind him.

What do YOU guys think about this?

The States are free to assign their electoral votes however they want. After the debacles of 2004 and 2000, I've taken to thinking that each state should have an audit for accuracy, and if the election outcome doesn't exceed the methods accuracy, the EV's should be split.

Some states do, in fact, have mechanisms for splitting the EV.

Until someone invents a crystal ball, my vote counts!

The polls and history suggest strongly that Oklahoma will vote McCain, but it will only happen if people actually go to the polling places and do it. If their votes didn't count, he couldn't win. I'll vote because I want everyone else to be able to add their votes to mine rather than the other way around. If I'm first in line, my vote counts, right? :)

Yeah, if you want to keep the original federalist system the states should have the right to cast their electoral votes as they wish. I guess the prerequisite would be that it's somewhat representative of the population's desire, otherwise the individual state may be too undemocratic to be part of the union.
I see the current situation as: in order to make the stakes higher and entice the candidates transfer more of their attention and cash to them most states have bet on a strategy winner takes it all. But that only works in a handful of them, where the R vs D numbers are close enough that can be influenced by that extra spending and attention.

I'm not sure that if NY decides to proportionate their electoral votes that'll make them more attractive place for campaigning. It'll still be a matter of a couple of votes, while more equally split state with winner takes all strategy could offer an order of magnitude more votes.

A good strategy for NY would be to have a weighted winner takes all policy, i.e. the take it all winner is the one who improves over the last election. It's like what incentive pay for top level CEO should be - they get it only if their company outperforms the market.
Then the party candidates will also have to compete not only with their current opponent, but also with their party's predecessor in the last election. So McCain will have to prove he's better than Bush and Obama, and Obama better than Kerry and Bush.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

Yeah, if you want to keep the original federalist system the states should have the right to cast their electoral votes as they wish. I guess the prerequisite would be that it's somewhat representative of the population's desire, otherwise the individual state may be too undemocratic to be part of the union.
I see the current situation as: in order to make the stakes higher and entice the candidates transfer more of their attention and cash to them most states have bet on a strategy winner takes it all. But that only works in a handful of them, where the R vs D numbers are close enough that can be influenced by that extra spending and attention.

I'm not sure that if NY decides to proportionate their electoral votes that'll make them more attractive place for campaigning. It'll still be a matter of a couple of votes, while more equally split state with winner takes all strategy could offer an order of magnitude more votes.

A good strategy for NY would be to have a weighted winner takes all policy, i.e. the take it all winner is the one who improves over the last election. It's like what incentive pay for top level CEO should be - they get it only if their company outperforms the market.
Then the party candidates will also have to compete not only with their current opponent, but also with their party's predecessor in the last election. So McCain will have to prove he's better than Bush and Obama, and Obama better than Kerry and Bush.

---

The only real solution is to eliminate the electoral college altogether. By diluting each state's electoral power by dividing the electorals proportionally, you further move the power to the smallest states.

Check this link: What's your vote worth? Ban the Electoral College! Small state's voters votes count more!

Wyoming gets an electoral vote for each 49,000 voters. New York gets one for every 118,000 voters -- and it's worse in New Jersey and Massachusetts.

We've never been able to get abolition of the electoral college through the Senate, where small states carry disproportionate weight. But it means that a Massachusetts vote counts a little over a third as much as a Wyoming vote.

Pretty unfair, if you ask me.

j

Your proposal is CERTAINLY an improvement .... which is why 'they' won't let it happen. (and I don't mean politicians) America should adopt a Proportional system like the vast majority of world democracies and provide a Single Transferable Vote (or Run Off) for President so that a majority of support is needed to win office.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE !!!

X

Down with the People!!
One FULLY Paid for piece of property(with a house on it), one vote! Until you reach that point no vote.*

one hundred housing units, paid for, 100 votes!

viva la revolution!:chop::chop::chop:


*if your bank has a loan on your house... the banker gets the vote :eek:

Interesting question.

The original purpose of the electoral college was as one of the checks and balances in the system. If the people made a foolish vote, the EC could vote to make the election sensible. The Electors were all generally monied landowners with an interest in the political success of whatever candidate.

More interesting is the tie electoral college vote. That is possible this year if you spin the wheel just right. Then the vote goes to the senate and each state gets exactly one vote regardless of the EC votes, regardless of the popular vote or their population density. That vote will be decided by the congressional representatives and senators. Hmm.

The only answer is for as many people to exercise their citizenship and weight the popular vote in such a way that the EC doesn't get the decision or the congress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Blue

The original purpose of the electoral college was as one of the checks and balances in the system. If the people made a foolish vote, the EC could vote to make the election sensible.

---

I looked it up, and many states have laws in place to punish unfaithful electors.
Also, I don't know how it used to be in ye olden days, but now people cast their vote for a candidate, and then the electoral college is made up to match that vote, which is a bit like the cart before the horse.

What you describe would make more sense. If you'd elect electors and then trust their decision, the existence of the electoral college makes sense.
But as it is now, it is a pretty useless system because it doesn't do what it was intended to do. The only real consequence of the EC is weighing states differently.

But you could do that with the popular vote of each state, and have a system that much better represents what the people want, while still leaving the weighing intact.

No state should have more power in the electoral college than any other state. The House of Representatives is designed to allow states with higher population to have more seats. The Senate puts the states on equal footing by giving two seats to each state. The election of the President should be no different. Assign X number of electoral votes to each state, 10 for example, and no state has more power than another. Then each state can decide for themselves how to vote them. For example: If one candidate gets 60% of the vote in a state then that candidate gets 6 of the votes and the other gets 4. Some states may decide to award all of their votes to the winner in the state. The USA being a replublic, that is their rght.
-AJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by syslight

Down with the People!!
One FULLY Paid for piece of property(with a house on it), one vote! Until you reach that point no vote.*

one hundred housing units, paid for, 100 votes!

---

And while we're at it, let's declare Bush the monarch. Feudalism sure would be simpler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

The only real solution is to eliminate the electoral college altogether.

---

I look at the EC as a Constitutionally defined check on the electorate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

I looked it up, and many states have laws in place to punish unfaithful electors.

---

Punishing a rogue elector does not undo that vote!