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

[Pepsei]

swing state (VA) for the win!!

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Codewiz

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

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.

in a popular system, it doesn't matter what state "rules the elections".
there will be no more concept of trying to win a state during an election. the power to elect goes to each individual.

Seriously? You aren't this dense.

Every single election will revolve around CA, NY, and TX. They will not care about any state for the rest of the existence of the USA. No other state would matter. No other individuals in any other states will matter.

They will campaign in NY, TX, and CA exclusively. Because that is where the battle will be won. It will become exclusively about certain states. There will never be any shifts in the states that matter. The population in this states never change enough to make a difference.

It means I will have ZERO reason to vote.

Now I will say, I can see reason to take the electoral college down to the county levels and split a states EC based on that. I agree that a state's winner take all approach can be improved.

But pure democracy has NEVER worked. It is mob rules and you guarantee a large percentage of the country get screwed year after year after year.

Your argument works the other way as well - Ohio is an important state in the electoral race, so most campaigning is done there.

Furthermore, you're flat out wrong - there is no reason to assume that 100% of campaigning would be done in these three states.
TX - population 24 million
CA - population 37 million
NY - population 20 million
Total - 81 million, or around half of the votes you'd need to win. Campaigning heavily in other states that lack the opposite party's presence would win you the election if you could even swing 60% of the votes in the rest of the country while maintaining only 30% in those three states (for instance, that's 24.3 million in those 3 states + 132 million in the rest = 156 million, which wins the election in a popular vote). You'd get a lot of bang for your buck by campaigning in the most populous states, but you'd probably end up losing the election as the rest of the country rallies against you.

That said, I don't support a popular voting system. It's worse than an electoral college system, which is also not perfect.

 

[BEL6772]

There are several issues on the ballot that will impact me more than the outcome of the presidential race will.

I've got the local school district, the county government and a nearby community college all proposing multi-million dollar bond initatives that will significantly increase my property tax bill if passed.

There are measures that will introduce or increase existing mandatory sentences for some crimes ... which will raise my state income tax bill to pay for all of the new prisons that would have to be built to make all those mandatory sentences happen.

There's a measure to take lotto funds away from the K-12 school system and put it into a "public safety" fund. I already have to supply the school with kleenex, glue, scissors, pencils, etc. I wonder what other things I'll have to pay for if the lotto funds go away.

Plus there's the city council and mayor positions to fill. Those folks will have a much bigger influence in how my city operates than whoever is sitting in the White House will.

I have already voted, and I'd encourage all of you to vote if you can, too.

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: Fritzo
That's the dumbest reason I've ever heard for not voting.

"Polls of 1000 people look skewed to one side, so I'm not going to vote."

Except in a hard core Blue state like New York or Connecticut, where the polls show McCain trailing by 20%. Yep... an even bigger margin than California! Even if ALL of the closeted Republicans in this state went out to vote, Obama would still trounce him by a wide margin with the existing electoral system.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: 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.

and there is a write in as well. When 2 candidates get 300-400 million to spend each on campaigning, advertising and debates and the 3rd choice gets a few million, can not afford advertisement and gets no invites to debates...

you have 2 choices.

It's like a nascar race with 2 racecars and 4 Yugos. Sure the Yugos have a "chance" to win

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: soulcougher73

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: 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

Exactly. Whoever promised to send a $500 relief check to every person in NYC and LA fisrt would win. That's a kleptocracy.

so the other candidate will promise to send $501 relief check to all 50 states.
see how relevant your analogy is?

Why would they promise it to everyone? They'd only need to promise it to people in urban centers since the rural areas would be completely irrelevant to the political race.

ZV

So you're saying if NYC and LA went Democrat and the rest of the population went Republican that the Dems would win? You do realize there are more people outside those 2 cities right? And in all honesty its not like all of CA, TX, NY would vote the same way which makes popular vote so popular(no pun intended).

Please do not attribute other people's words to me. Had you bothered to read what I actually wrote, you'd see that I never said anything about just NYC and LA, only about urban centers. And absolutely nowhere, not in my post and not in the other person's post, did anyone mention political parties until you threw that red herring in there as an attempt to politicize the issue.

Taken together, the sum of all urban areas in the US would be more than sufficient to override the concerns of rural areas. Remember, an urban area includes places like Toledo, Ohio (fewer than 300,000 people).

If you take the top 50 metropolitan areas in the US, that's 163,000,000 people per census records (year 2000). That represents 57.8% of the US population. The top 100 metropolitan areas come in at around 194,000,000 people, or 68.8% of the US population. By the time you take all the cities with 100,000 or more people in them, you're looking at more than 227,000,000 people. That's 80.4% of the US population. There's no practical reason to make any promises at all that affect people who live in a city with fewer than 100,000 people if the vote is strictly a popular vote.

There are exactly 0 cities in Montana with over 100,000 people, however. Even the largest comes in at just about 98,000 people. Under a system with a strictly popular vote for President, Montana would simply get overlooked completely. As it is, the electoral college ensures that at least lip-service is paid to states like Montana, without the electoral college, candidates wouldn't even feign caring.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: 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

Exactly. Whoever promised to send a $500 relief check to every person in NYC and LA fisrt would win. That's a kleptocracy.

so the other candidate will promise to send $501 relief check to all 50 states.
see how relevant your analogy is?

Why would they promise it to everyone? They'd only need to promise it to people in urban centers since the rural areas would be completely irrelevant to the political race.

ZV

because urban centers alone are not going to get you 51% of the votes.
and to point out how a bribe as an analogy is pretty poor.

Urban centers of 100,000 people or more account for over 80% of the US population. Win 60% of the urban vote and you'll win the election since the remaining 20% of the population is not a solid block and you can count on getting at least 15% of the non-urban vote without even campaigning in those areas.

ZV

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: 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

Exactly. Whoever promised to send a $500 relief check to every person in NYC and LA fisrt would win. That's a kleptocracy.

so the other candidate will promise to send $501 relief check to all 50 states.
see how relevant your analogy is?

Why would they promise it to everyone? They'd only need to promise it to people in urban centers since the rural areas would be completely irrelevant to the political race.

ZV

because urban centers alone are not going to get you 51% of the votes.
and to point out how a bribe as an analogy is pretty poor.

Urban centers of 100,000 people or more account for over 80% of the US population. Win 60% of the urban vote and you'll win the election since the remaining 20% of the population is not a solid block and you can count on getting at least 15% of the non-urban vote without even campaigning in those areas.

ZV

and urban centers of 100k people are not limited to 3 states. and just because you campaign in those states, you are not guaranteed anything.
no candidate is going to be stupid enough to just focus on cities and ignore the rest of america. it's not going to look good for them to come off as biased and indifferent to the rest of the country.

 

[LuckyTaxi]

i refuse to vote

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: 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

Exactly. Whoever promised to send a $500 relief check to every person in NYC and LA fisrt would win. That's a kleptocracy.

so the other candidate will promise to send $501 relief check to all 50 states.
see how relevant your analogy is?

Why would they promise it to everyone? They'd only need to promise it to people in urban centers since the rural areas would be completely irrelevant to the political race.

ZV

because urban centers alone are not going to get you 51% of the votes.
and to point out how a bribe as an analogy is pretty poor.

Urban centers of 100,000 people or more account for over 80% of the US population. Win 60% of the urban vote and you'll win the election since the remaining 20% of the population is not a solid block and you can count on getting at least 15% of the non-urban vote without even campaigning in those areas.

ZV

and urban centers of 100k people are not limited to 3 states. and just because you campaign in those states, you are not guaranteed anything.
no candidate is going to be stupid enough to just focus on cities and ignore the rest of america. it's not going to look good for them to come off as biased and indifferent to the rest of the country.

Again with the three state red herring? I have never once said anything whatsoever about campaigning in only three states. Never.

They would come across as biased and indifferent to people outside of cities; people in towns with fewer than 10,000 people. Which represents less than 10% of the population. People in cities don't care about rural areas. You are making very bad assumptions when you think that moving to a strictly popular vote would not serve to concentrate efforts on urban areas with populations over 100,000 people.

ZV

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: 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.

Depends on your state actually.
Bob Barr and Nader are not on ballots in all 50 states.

They may be in your own state perhaps.

 

[imported_Lothar]

I live in Maryland and my state will go to Obama regardless of what I do.
The only reason I vote is to vote against stupid budgets and other things that my state, city, or county come up with to put on the ballot.
Basically, I'm a budget buster.

I don't care about federal elections (voting for President).
I do care about voting for Senate, Governor, House of Reps, and delegates in my state however, since my vote actually matters.

 

[oddyager]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: 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

Exactly. Whoever promised to send a $500 relief check to every person in NYC and LA fisrt would win. That's a kleptocracy.

so the other candidate will promise to send $501 relief check to all 50 states.
see how relevant your analogy is?

Why would they promise it to everyone? They'd only need to promise it to people in urban centers since the rural areas would be completely irrelevant to the political race.

ZV

because urban centers alone are not going to get you 51% of the votes.
and to point out how a bribe as an analogy is pretty poor.

Urban centers of 100,000 people or more account for over 80% of the US population. Win 60% of the urban vote and you'll win the election since the remaining 20% of the population is not a solid block and you can count on getting at least 15% of the non-urban vote without even campaigning in those areas.

ZV

and urban centers of 100k people are not limited to 3 states. and just because you campaign in those states, you are not guaranteed anything.
no candidate is going to be stupid enough to just focus on cities and ignore the rest of america. it's not going to look good for them to come off as biased and indifferent to the rest of the country.

Yep. Giuliani's is a prime example of that on how not to run a campaign.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Again with the three state red herring? I have never once said anything whatsoever about campaigning in only three states. Never.

They would come across as biased and indifferent to people outside of cities; people in towns with fewer than 10,000 people. Which represents less than 10% of the population. People in cities don't care about rural areas. You are making very bad assumptions when you think that moving to a strictly popular vote would not serve to concentrate efforts on urban areas with populations over 100,000 people.

ZV

you are also making a bad assumption to think that they will only focus on big cities.

my assumption is based on how i, as an average american, thinks.
i am living in the biggest city in the US and if a candidate ignores small towns and rural america, he may lose my vote due to perceived bias from me.
he is running for president of the nation, not the president of NYC or LA.
he should be focused on doing what's best for the nation as a whole and not just the major cities. if i care about what's good for my city/state, i have the state and local ballots for that.
i would hope that there are more people who feel the same way.


i'm only using the 3 state example because it was brought up previously by someone else.
you brought up top 10 metro cities, so how about I use that then?
campaigning in the top 10 (or 20, or 30, or 50) metro cities is not going to win you an election.
why not? because both candidates are going to be campaigning there and neither is going to win a landslide victory in every metro area. they will go 60/40, 55/45, 51/49 and WILL have to address the rest of America, smaller towns and rural areas included.

 

[Codewiz]

I am just going to say this again.

You are asking for a Pure Democracy. There are MANY books and lit written about why this is a BAD BAD idea. So either you think you are smarter than our founding fathers, or you just want to debate for no good reason.

Your vote will count even less and there will be more voter apathy. The US hasn't tried a pure democracy but it has been attempted in the past in other countries. It has failed every single time.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: Codewiz
I am just going to say this again.

You are asking for a Pure Democracy. There are MANY books and lit written about why this is a BAD BAD idea. So either you think you are smarter than our founding fathers, or you just want to debate for no good reason.

Your vote will count even less and there will be more voter apathy. The US hasn't tried a pure democracy but it has been attempted in the past in other countries. It has failed every single time.

please point me to these books and past attempts by other countries. i would like to be educated on it.

i believe for every reason promoting the current system, you can find a counter argument against it.
just like you can find a reason for and against popular voting. there's flaws to both systems- it comes down to which one is less bad.

no one is saying anything about anyone being smarter than anyone else, but our founding fathers lived in vastly different times than we do now.
one of the reasons for the system they adopted is because communications and transportation were limited in the 1800's.
a candidate could be popular locally but be unknown to the rest of the country and could win the election. that is not possible in today's times.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

oh and please explain how my vote will count even less.