Does Your Vote Count?

[idav]

Trump won fair and square.

Its nice you think it was all fair, guess all is fair in war.

The country has spoken.

Apparently but the electoral didn't listen.

 

[JakofHearts]

Its nice you think it was all fair, guess all is fair in war.

Apparently but the electoral didn't listen.

 

[idav]

Yet trump says the inner cities are war zones, and they vote democrat.

 

[JakofHearts]

Yet trump says the inner cities are war zones, and they vote democrat.

 

[idav]

That has nothing to do with what I said. I was talking about trumps claim that cities are warzones.

 

[Thief]

I feel your numbers can be a bit arbitrary. Not sure if 18 can validate such a theory. Not sure what number will fairly equate to an American culture.

You haven't defined exactly what in the taxes would qualify. That's keeping it very open ended.

i am open minded.....hehehehehe

I figure growing up in this country takes about 18yrs
we consider our children grown by that age

if you enter this enter late in life.....you still need to grow

I think protecting this country includes keeping the right to vote to those people that LIVE HERE

 

[suncowiam]

i am open minded.....hehehehehe

I figure growing up in this country takes about 18yrs
we consider our children grown by that age

if you enter this enter late in life.....you still need to grow

I think protecting this country includes keeping the right to vote to those people that LIVE HERE

I agree on that thought just not sure on the best way of implementing it.

 

[Thief]

I agree on that thought just not sure on the best way of implementing it.

I would guess.....

most of our gov agencies do cooperate with each other at some level
tax forms and collection have been around for decades

adding one more form might cause boo hoo for those who hate paper...but...
I prefer a hard copy of what happens
( ever hear of the Diebold Co.?)

and this year was no exception with cries of tampering
a hard copy with your intended vote would be more traceable

Privacy would be held....as your vote would be performed in your home
a proper tally would be a sure thing
and undue influence would be reduced......as the vote can only been accepted after 18yrs of taxation
or legal age in residence
which ever comes first

 

[JakofHearts]

That has nothing to do with what I said. I was talking about trumps claim that cities are warzones.

Well if that is the case, then yeah, I'd agree. The inner-cities in Detroit, Chicago, DC, Memphis, NY, LA, Baltimore all have some of the highest crime rates in America, (Chicago, Obama's hometown with a record high in 2016), and they've all been democratic strongholds for multiple decades.

What does that tell you?

 

[idav]

Well if that is the case, then yeah, I'd agree. The inner-cities in Detroit, Chicago, DC, Memphis, NY, LA, Baltimore all have some of the highest crime rates in America, (Chicago, Obama's hometown with a record high in 2016), and they've all been democratic strongholds for multiple decades.

What does that tell you?

Tells me it isn't true since the large populated cities didn't vote for Trump, and ironically your making it sound like libs have guns to the point of being Iraq.

edit: of course higher populated areas have more incidents but the south has the highest violent crime rate percentage wise, having nothing to do with Cali or NY etc.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The Electoral College (EC) has been around since the founding of the USA, and it is the EC that actually elects the president, not the popular vote. The electors are supposed to vote the way the popular vote within the state voted, but in some states it is not the law. In those states where it is the law, the penalty for casting an "off vote" is usually just a fine (that donors would pay).

Under the EC system, it is actually the states (as a republic) that decide the election. That is why a candidate could win the popular vote but lose the election. They could carry states with higher populations like CA or NY, but the number of states actually won could be less than the other candidate(s).

Then comes the question that the OP is actually about: does your vote count?

Under the EC system, the answer is MAYBE. That is because if your candidate won the state, then yes, your vote counted. If your candidate did not win the state, then no, your vote does not count. Let me explain this further.

Using California 2016 as the example, around 33% (1 in 3) of CA voters chose Trump. However, CA tends to be a liberal state, so Hillary actually won the state (62%) and got all 55 electoral votes. That 33% was not represented in the outcome for CA.

There is another way to look at it. The black population in the US makes up around 13% of the total population, while whites make up around 77%. Just as an example, let's say 8% of blacks can legally vote (factoring out minors, etc.), Out of that 77% of whites, all it takes is 9% to vote opposite the black voters, and the black vote is effectively wiped out and meaningless.

Some will say to do away with the EC completely and just let the popular vote decide elections. Under this scenario, then yes, every single vote would count, and it would not matter where you lived. The problem is that mathematically, candidates could only focus on the highest population centers and ignore the rest of the country. Some states would not be touched by the campaign trail. The candidates would never speak to them. Of course it would also mean that we would no longer be a republic, as was founded by our Forefathers.

So, remedies?

One option I have seen is to give every state 100 electoral votes (EV). Using CA again as the example, the 33% that was not represented would now be represented with 33 EV. Hillary would be given 62 EV and the other candidates would get some small percentage divided among themselves. The first candidate to 2501 EV, wins!

Very simple, all votes matter, and the states still elect with an adjusted EC for modern times, thus preserving the republic!

Edit: this also means people need to actually vote. It is estimated that 90,000,000 people did NOT vote in the 2016 presidential election.

Giving each state 100 ec votes would mean that Wyoming would get the same number of votes as NY despite the incredible population difference.

What is the best solution? Get rid of the EC. Have a direct vote for president.

 

[Neo Deist]

Giving each state 100 ec votes would mean that Wyoming would get the same number of votes as NY despite the incredible population difference.

What is the best solution? Get rid of the EC. Have a direct vote for president.

Apparently you did not read what I wrote. If you go with popular vote only, mathematically a candidate only has to focus on key states with the highest populations.The other states would not matter. At least under an EC system, ALL states have a voice. Besides, we live in a republic where the states vote, which was the way the country was founded.

 

[Thief]

Apparently you did not read what I wrote. If you go with popular vote only, mathematically a candidate only has to focus on key states with the highest populations.The other states would not matter. At least under an EC system, ALL states have a voice. Besides, we live in a republic where the states vote, which was the way the country was founded.

states count as states if you look at them as ....states

try individual votes nationwide.....no matter what

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Apparently you did not read what I wrote. If you go with popular vote only, mathematically a candidate only has to focus on key states with the highest populations.The other states would not matter. At least under an EC system, ALL states have a voice. Besides, we live in a republic where the states vote, which was the way the country was founded.

Mathmatically they only have to focus on swing states now. This argument of focusing only on highly populated areas such as cities or highly populated cities really fails to take into account the diversity of these areas. Thinly veiled attempts to win an election by promising everyone in New York, California, Florida and Texas a new car wouldn't work becasue people aren't going to unify for a carrot. The worries of the EC before was about how states would attempt to gain more power over other states. During the time the federal government was weak and states worked more as minature nations. Now states are not minature nations that attempt to gain power over their neighbors. Florida isn't attempting to usurp Georgia for trading rights with Spain anymore.

Do govenors only pander to the cities of their states? There is no viable argument for the EC currently.

 

[Neo Deist]

Mathmatically they only have to focus on swing states now. This argument of focusing only on highly populated areas such as cities or highly populated cities really fails to take into account the diversity of these areas. Thinly veiled attempts to win an election by promising everyone in New York, California, Florida and Texas a new car wouldn't work becasue people aren't going to unify for a carrot. The worries of the EC before was about how states would attempt to gain more power over other states. During the time the federal government was weak and states worked more as minature nations. Now states are not minature nations that attempt to gain power over their neighbors. Florida isn't attempting to usurp Georgia for trading rights with Spain anymore.

Do govenors only pander to the cities of their states? There is no viable argument for the EC currently.

The US was founded as a republic. In a republic, the states vote. If you are proposing to rewrite the Constitution, contact your members of Congress.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The US was founded as a republic. In a republic, the states vote. If you are proposing to rewrite the Constitution, contact your members of Congress.

In a republic we have elected officals that represent us. There is no requirment of states and there is no requirement of indirect vote of a president. Being a republic has nothing to do with the EC.

I do actually want an amendment for direct vote for president. Not because Hillary lost but because this has been my opinion for at least a decade.

 

[idav]

Apparently you did not read what I wrote. If you go with popular vote only, mathematically a candidate only has to focus on key states with the highest populations.The other states would not matter. At least under an EC system, ALL states have a voice. Besides, we live in a republic where the states vote, which was the way the country was founded.

And this is somehow different now where candidates only need to concentrate on pivotal swing states or concentrate on states with huge points?

 

[Neo Deist]

And this is somehow different now where candidates only need to concentrate on pivotal swing states or concentrate on states with huge points?

The swing states are there because most other states are set in stone as far as Dem or Pub. It is a product of cultural differences in geographic locations.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The swing states are there because most other states are set in stone as far as Dem or Pub. It is a product of cultural differences in geographic locations.

It is a byproduct of the grouping of those differnet populations specifically.

 

[idav]

The swing states are there because most other states are set in stone as far as Dem or Pub. It is a product of cultural differences in geographic locations.

That doesn't change the fact that in the electoral system, only a hand full of states need be targeted. At the same time you said yourself, those large populated areas like Texas and California won't swing so easy.

I heard trump make that argument and I don't buy it, claiming if the system was popular vote he would have just targeted different states. Hillary was closer at swinging Texas, trump would not have a shot at swinging California or NY.