Does Your Vote Count?

[Saint Frankenstein]

If the founding fathers implemted it, then there are good reasons.

I'm so sick of the worship of the "Founding Fathers" in this country.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm so sick of the worship of the "Founding Fathers" in this country.

I prefer just plain "founders".
"Fathers" sounds so paternalistic.

 

[JakofHearts]

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.

I'm talking about specific cities that have been consistently in the top most dangerous cities in America, and they have been run by democrats for decades.

These inner-cities have not improved, in fact some have gotten worse. Homicides In Chicago alone for example eclipse US death toll In Afghanistan and Iraq combined. This isn't about your feelings, but about an ability to acknowledge the facts and the cold hard truth. These inner-cities and the people that live in these conditions deserve better than slums and ghettos.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm so sick of the worship of the "Founding Fathers" in this country.

Well they did produce a country that skyrocketed into a powerful attractive land that drew in droves of people around the world who wanted a better life for themselves and family in a short span of 200+ years by risking everything they had against a relentless, pursuing, and possessive British empire to escape their destructive manner of tyranny. No other culture seems to equate that progression.

While things were obviously not perfect even then, they accomplished something that likely wasn't even thought possible that caught the world's intention. Even France so much inspired they presented Lady Liberty. The Great Experiment.

It's what America became and stood for through our founding fathers efforts and personal risk, producing a protective constitution written by the people for the people that they are held to such high esteem and respect.

Something that many people are trying to reclaim and perserve in wake of progressive corruption that seeks to remove all that was accomplished.

The founding fathers carved their rightful place in American history by giving us the Constitution and Bill of Rights so that we won't return to what, as a country, had escaped from in the first place.

I'm glad people are revisiting history here and paying attention again personally. At least for how the founding fathers came about in making a country like this one.

Without them I dunno what life would be like if no America or Constitution ever manifested.











.

 

[Thief]

Well they did produce a country that skyrocketed into a powerful attractive land that drew in droves of people around the world who wanted a better life for themselves and family in a short span of 200+ years by risking everything they had against a relentless, pursuing, and possessive British empire to escape their destructive manner of tyranny. No other culture seems to equate that progression.

While things were obviously not perfect even then, they accomplished something that likely wasn't even thought possible that caught the world's intention. Even France so much inspired they presented Lady Liberty. The Great Experiment.

It's what America became and stood for through our founding fathers efforts and personal risk, producing a protective constitution written by the people for the people that they are held to such high esteem and respect.

Something that many people are trying to reclaim and perserve in wake of progressive corruption that seeks to remove all that was accomplished.

The founding fathers carved their rightful place in American history by giving us the Constitution and Bill of Rights so that we won't return to what, as a country, had escaped from in the first place.

I'm glad people are revisiting history here and paying attention again personally. At least for how the founding fathers came about in making a country like this one.

Without them I dunno what life would be like if no America or Constitution ever manifested.

well said....

but obviously.....the flow needs to be curtailed
it's not the open, virgin territory it used to be

we are running out of elbow room

and making certain who is voting....and who should not....
is finally at our doorsteps









.

 

[Altfish]

If it is any consolation it is similar in the UK.

My parliamentary seat is a true blue Tory stronghold, so any non-Tory vote is a waste of time. We never see canvassers as they use their resources elsewhere.
However, the local council elections are a swing borough, so we have candidates and their teams knocking on our door.

I'm sure the answer is some sort of proportional representation. With a minimum threshold to get a 'seat'.

 

[tytlyf]

I don't like the EC, never have. It's not a fair system. I'm just surprised that Trump supporters defend and like the electoral college. Even Trump himself has stated the EC is a disaster for democracy.

 

[Thief]

I say......would be candidates could post their manifesto on Youtube

people are going to see it

people could then vote doing tax time

and I bet a lot of hype and contrariness would just vanish

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

The Electoral College is an absolute necessity. Without it, a few states - I believe California, Texas, Florida and New York - would rule the election, and we'd likely be nothing but Republican every election. It definitely does need some changes; for instance the "Winner Takes All" concept needs to go. If a state has 4 Electoral Votes, and 25% of voters vote Democrat, then the Democratic candidate should get One vote from that state.

I've also had the idea that to balance power for the presidency, each candidate should be required to pick a running mate of the opposite political party, if we're to stay to this abhorrent Two Party system. That way a compromise on all things would be more ensured, rather than one party taking the reigns for 8 years, then the other party taking the reigns, and on and on.

 

[columbus]

Well they did produce a country that skyrocketed into a powerful attractive land that drew in droves of people around the world who wanted a better life for themselves and family in a short span of 200+ years by risking everything they had against a relentless, pursuing, and possessive British empire to escape their destructive manner of tyranny. No other culture seems to equate that progression.

Genocide, slavery, opportunistic war and total disregard for the environment also played big parts in that.

The Founding Fathers had some brilliant ideas the world is better for. But their ethical standards left a lot to be desired by modern standards.
Tom

 

[tytlyf]

The Electoral College is an absolute necessity. Without it, a few states - I believe California, Texas, Florida and New York - would rule the election.

? The electoral college allows states to have more power than others. A national election should be 1 vote = 1 vote. I don't see how your scenario would happen.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The Electoral College is an absolute necessity. Without it, a few states - I believe California, Texas, Florida and New York - would rule the election, and we'd likely be nothing but Republican every election. It definitely does need some changes; for instance the "Winner Takes All" concept needs to go. If a state has 4 Electoral Votes, and 25% of voters vote Democrat, then the Democratic candidate should get One vote from that state.

I've also had the idea that to balance power for the presidency, each candidate should be required to pick a running mate of the opposite political party, if we're to stay to this abhorrent Two Party system. That way a compromise on all things would be more ensured, rather than one party taking the reigns for 8 years, then the other party taking the reigns, and on and on.

You do realise New York and Cali are just about the bluest states in the union?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Genocide, slavery, opportunistic war and total disregard for the environment also played big parts in that.

The Founding Fathers had some brilliant ideas the world is better for. But their ethical standards left a lot to be desired by modern standards.
Tom

I have a feeling those ethical standards across Europe and elsewhere were pretty much par for course during that period of time. Still, I agree those qualities certainly do not cast a good light in that regard looking back.

 

[columbus]

I have a feeling those ethical standards across Europe and elsewhere were pretty much par for course during that period of time. Still, I agree those qualities certainly do not cast a good light in that regard looking back.

That's why I don't consider their writings to be Holy Writ. They wanted the president appointed by the rich white folk allowed to vote. They didn't consider democracy a good thing, but they also never imagined that it would come to be in "their" United States.
They confidently assumed that blacks and women and indigenous and poor people and immigrants would stay in their place.

Well, they haven't. And then there's the homosexuals, and you know what those people are like.
Tom

 

[Jeremiahcp]

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.

"Some states would not be touched by the campaign trail. The candidates would never speak to them."

This already happens.

"all votes matter,"

As already pointed out:

CA and its 39.25 million people would have the same voting power as the .585 million people in WY. That makes no sense at all.

You would be are taking voting power away from people, not giving it to them. It would be making votes count for even less. WY would be the new benchmark for how much your vote would be worth. The more populated state you lived then the less voting power you would have.

 

[tytlyf]

Trump thinks the electoral college is a disaster for democracy. And I agree. It's old, outdated.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

The electoral college allows states to have more power than others.

No, the Electoral College is intended to balance the votes proportionately, so that sparsely populated areas don't lose their voice, and have as much say as the big states. The problem - yes, there are problems that I acknowledge - is that the Electors aren't required to listen to the votes of their people. This, as well as which votes go to which candidate, needs to change.

You do realise New York and Cali are just about the bluest states in the union?

California was not always so. Perhaps my statement was a little... extreme. But the point is that those states voices would vastly outweigh those from Wyoming or Nevada, for instance.

 

[habiru]

Since it is mandatory for all person to have an State issued I.D. That they should create a machine that let the person uses their I.D. to swipe and choose their candidate. That it will let us to know that the voters are a living person that they are able to vote in this country and that they are at the right age as well. The machine should be able to keep track of the voters to see if they has already voted somewhere else .And If those that cannot afford an I.D. That the government will pay for it like they had paid for those Obama's phones that another country had profited from it, by the use of the Tax-payers money. That was a great leak that helped to drain our economy, but to boost up their economy.

 

[tytlyf]

No, the Electoral College is intended to balance the votes proportionately, so that sparsely populated areas don't lose their voice, and have as much say as the big states.

Well, what I proposed was 1 vote = 1 vote. States have nothing to do with it.