poll- how many of you will not be voting because your candidate has no chance of winning in your state?

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: NL5
If we go popular vote, then heavily populated states would have increased power over the election......

sounds fine to me.


<--- small stater.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Drekce
The current system ensure that all states have some level of importance in the election results. No candidates would ever campaign anywhere but CA, NY, TX, FL, IL, OH, MI, PA and maybe VA and GA if we went to a popular vote. I do think that some kind of hybrid system could be put in place that merges the two approaches.

why would they do this? Furthermore, even if you were correct, how would it be any different that the current ohio/penn/florida setup?

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: NL5
If we go popular vote, then heavily populated states would have increased power over the election......

explain.

the only downfall i see is that candidates would devote more of their campaign time to heavily populated regions, but that's no different than what they do now in swing states.

http://www.time.com/time/elect...0,18471,749496,00.html

And for a more radical opinion on it:

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst110104.htm

read every word of both, still not seeing the other side of things.

 

[0roo0roo]

i vote because our ballots stuffed with stupid money wasting propositions every year. gotta stop them

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: NL5
If we go popular vote, then heavily populated states would have increased power over the election......

sounds fine to me.


<--- small stater.

big stater and I'd be for it if i moved to a small state.
i'm not for a popular system because it skews power either way. i'm for it because it represents democracy.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Drekce
The current system ensure that all states have some level of importance in the election results. No candidates would ever campaign anywhere but CA, NY, TX, FL, IL, OH, MI, PA and maybe VA and GA if we went to a popular vote. I do think that some kind of hybrid system could be put in place that merges the two approaches.

why would they do this? Furthermore, even if you were correct, how would it be any different that the current ohio/penn/florida setup?

exactly.

 

[Saulbadguy]

A democrat has not won the state I live in since Lyndon Johnson, but i'll vote anyways. It's kind of embarrassing when you think about how badly McCain will beat Obama in this state.

 

[LS8]

My state will most definitely be voting for McCain as they have voted Republican in the last four elections. I will show up so I can vote for other offices up for election but the I doubt I will pick a presidential candidate. Neither of these morons deserves my vote either way.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Originally posted by: theplaidfad

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer

Originally posted by: theplaidfad

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer

Originally posted by: ScottyB

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Voting is a privilege, it is also a duty. Why do so many think their duty is abrogated because they don't agree with how the government works?

That's like saying it's a person's duty to get raped in prison because that is how the system works.

Your analogy is ridiculous. Are you saying you owe no duty to the country you live in?

I think enough of the duty to our country is paid off in the crapload of taxes we pay, and the 4 years of service some people (like myself) have given.

Voting is not a duty, and you sir, are a tool.

Perhaps you need to reevaluate your concept of citizenship. The duties, as are the privileges of American citizenship, are constant. Your previous service didn't buy you a lifelong 'free' ticket.

You're an idiot for thinking voting is a duty. It's a right, NOT a duty. Perhaps you should reevaluate your concept of logical thinking.

It is the duty of every American citizen to give voice to how they believe the government of the United States should be formed and function. The sacrifices of countless American's to ensure the right of citizens to vote does not mean they can expect the "rights" they enjoy to continue unchanged without their input.

 

[Jeff7]

So what if a politician campaigns in your town or not. You'll hear the same old rehashed stuff you'd see them say on CNN/MSNBC/The Onion, except you'll see it in person, maybe with a little locality-oriented pandering thrown in. Big deal.

But I guess that's enough to sway a fair number of people.

"OMG, his bus totally went past my house! I'm going to vote for him now!"

 

[BoomerD]

I've ALWAYS believed that if you don't vote, you give up your right to bitch.

Vote for whatever Democrat you wish, but get out and vote!!

Seriously, doesn't matter WHO you vote for, whether your vote really counts in the overall scheme of things, (and I use scheme intentionally) or whether your candidate has a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected...

GET OUT AND VOTE!

IMO, not only is it your RIGHT as an American, it is also your DUTY to do so.

(I've been in Kahleeforneeya for over 20 years. There were a couple of times where the election was already called before I got to vote...didn't matter. I still voted for the candidate I preferred, even if he/she had already been declared the loser. I still voted to have the right to bitch about things...

 

[Codewiz]

You people do understand we don't live in a pure democracy right? They do still teach our children that we are a Republic right?

People are saying that popular vote wouldn't be any different than the how we have it now with swing states. Yeah, it is completely different. Swing states can change over time. Population hardly EVER changes. So this election we have certain states that are considered swing states. Florida used to not be a swing state but over the past 20 years has become one.

When was the last time that NY, CA, TX weren't the most populous states? Yeah, see the big picture. Those few states would rule the elections. They would control the future of the country. Our founding fathers were smarter than every single person on this board. They understood that a REPUBLIC was the correct approach because it gives every state a voice.

If you go with popular vote, then once the big states poll a certain way, there is absolutely no reason for any other person in the entire country to vote.

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Kev
I'm not voting because my vote will never have an effect on any election, so it is a waste of time.

in a popular system, every vote will count.

If I vote on November 4, will the outcome of the election be any different than if I stay home?

we're not in a popular vote system, so no.

Even if we were in a popular vote system. Show me an example of one election that was decided by a margin of one vote.

if everyone thought like you did, then no one would vote.

But I don't control how everyone thinks. Therefore what everyone thinks has no effect on what I as an individual do.

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Kev
I'm not voting because my vote will never have an effect on any election, so it is a waste of time.

in a popular system, every vote will count.

If I vote on November 4, will the outcome of the election be any different than if I stay home?

we're not in a popular vote system, so no.

Even if we were in a popular vote system. Show me an example of one election that was decided by a margin of one vote.

http://www.greeleytribune.com/...0061129/NEWS/111290059

Just the first example, there are many more.

"With 735 votes cast"

LOL

 

[Walking in Circles]

i don't have "states" and don't know what you're talking about

 

[Nitemare]

It's the first time since I have been voting(16 years) where my vote matters in the Presidential race and I as a registered republican will likely vote for Obama.

The electoral college system is inherently flawed in this large of a population and the 2 party system is an absolute joke. I'd like to vote for a person instead of a choice of 2 parties. You would think in a nation of 300 million that there would be more than 2 choices every 4 years.

 

[Zenmervolt]

The problem with moving to a popular vote, which the founders foresaw when they created the electoral college, is that a purely popular vote will allow the relatively few urban areas to entirely override the concerns of rural people.

The top 10 metropolitan areas in the US have 25% of the total population. New York and LA together account for over 10% of the total US population. If the presidency were determined by only the popular vote, candidates would completely ignore large swaths of the US. The electoral college mitigates this somewhat by breaking up the voting block of large cities, separating them by state. This ensures that at least some attention is given to rural concerns.

The electoral college isn't perfect, but it does serve a necessary function.

ZV

 

[mooseracing]

Originally posted by: DomS
I dislike both candidates so I won't be voting.

Now if we could get all those people that think there is only two people running and don't want to vote for either to vote for the other parties then maybe the Repubs and Dems would open their eyes.


A real change would be getting to a 3rd party or other choice. There will be no change if either of the current top 2 parties get elected besides moving to more socialism

 

[BoberFett]

Instant runoff. With instant runoff there's no fear that you're voting for someone who won't win. If your candidate doesn't then your second pick gets your vote. And so on.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: mooseracing

Originally posted by: DomS
I dislike both candidates so I won't be voting.

Now if we could get all those people that think there is only two people running and don't want to vote for either to vote for the other parties then maybe the Repubs and Dems would open their eyes.


A real change would be getting to a 3rd party or other choice. There will be no change if either of the current top 2 parties get elected besides moving to more socialism

I'd like to see a none of the above on the ballot that is weighted as 5 votes, either that or not having a lesser of 2 evils election every 4 years.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
It's the first time since I have been voting(16 years) where my vote matters in the Presidential race and I as a registered republican will likely vote for Obama.

The electoral college system is inherently flawed in this large of a population and the 2 party system is an absolute joke. I'd like to vote for a person instead of a choice of 2 parties. You would think in a nation of 300 million that there would be more than 2 choices every 4 years.

there are actually 6 choices on the ballot.

 

[LS8]

Originally posted by: Codewiz
You people do understand we don't live in a pure democracy right? They do still teach our children that we are a Republic right?

People are saying that popular vote wouldn't be any different than the how we have it now with swing states. Yeah, it is completely different. Swing states can change over time. Population hardly EVER changes. So this election we have certain states that are considered swing states. Florida used to not be a swing state but over the past 20 years has become one.

When was the last time that NY, CA, TX weren't the most populous states? Yeah, see the big picture. Those few states would rule the elections. They would control the future of the country. Our founding fathers were smarter than every single person on this board. They understood that a REPUBLIC was the correct approach because it gives every state a voice.

If you go with popular vote, then once the big states poll a certain way, there is absolutely no reason for any other person in the entire country to vote.

Well said!

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
It's the first time since I have been voting(16 years) where my vote matters in the Presidential race and I as a registered republican will likely vote for Obama.

The electoral college system is inherently flawed in this large of a population and the 2 party system is an absolute joke. I'd like to vote for a person instead of a choice of 2 parties. You would think in a nation of 300 million that there would be more than 2 choices every 4 years.

i'm with you here but that's a whole other thread.

 

[soulcougher73]

Electoral college is an outdated system that started when we had Pony Express. I think we should goto 100% internet voting. You log in with your SS# which checks a database to see if you are still in fact alive as well as if this SS# has already been used to vote. If you pass both of those plus picture ID upon entering voting station you can vote.

Or a Hybrid system of electoral college be put in place. Based on popular vote of each state the electoral college divies up its EC points into percentages. So if said state gets 10 EC points and candidate A gets 60% of the populuar vote and candidate B gets 40% of the popular vote then Candidate A gets 6 of the total 10 EC points and candidate B gets the other 4.

I think that would be fair as well.

 

[soulcougher73]

Originally posted by: Balr0g

Originally posted by: Anubis
I?m voting but not for either of the 2 main candidates, because they are both giant pieces of fucking shit

But then your vote is about as useful as if you don't vote anyway.

I am with Anubis on this one. I will be writing in Ron Paul myself. I know the vote wont coutn for anything in the race, but this way i CAN say i voted and is CAN say i also voted with what i believe in regardless of knowing he doesnt stand a chance.

Kind of like being a Royals baseball fan but not routing for them knowing they dont stand a chance at winning. Very front runner'ish.