OT - VOTE!!! - (US Citizens)

[Maraxle]

And you're completely wrong. Your vote, in a smaller state, actually counts for MORE than a Californian's vote. The number of electors is determined by the number of senators plus the number of representatives. Since every state has two senators and at least one representative, the smaller states tend to be overrepresentted. That is, a state will have at least 3 electoral votes, when based on population alone it might only be entitled to one.

For example, in 1988 the voting population of the 7 smallest states (Alaska, Delaware, DC, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming) was around 3.1 million, with a total of 21 electoral votes. The population of Florida was around 9 million, also with a total of 21 electoral votes. Thus, each voter in those smaller states counted for about 3 Florida voters.

You should read up more on the electoral college, it's actually a pretty well-designed system.

I'm quite aware of the statistics that support your stance. Your brainwashing is clearly complete. However, coming from a state with 4 electoral college votes, I know better. Even if my vote caused a president to win by 4 electoral college votes, the results would be thrown out and decided elsewhere. In a straight vote, this would not happen.

We should take a look at Brazil's voting system, as they have it right. It's a straight vote, and you are REQUIRED to vote, if you are of age. Exceptions are made if you are sick, etc. The vote is also computerized, in a very good way, with separate databases at each voting site to minimize the impact a hacker could have. Very slick.

EDIT:

Also, keep in mind that the electoral college reps do not have to vote the same way as their state. It would be political suicide not to, but they are not required.

Plus, simply put, any vote in which a president can be elected by receiving fewer votes than his/her opponent is broken.

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

I'm quite aware of the statistics that support your stance. Your brainwashing is clearly complete.

No brainwashing involved. I went to a public school. I had to find the facts and educate myself

However, coming from a state with 4 electoral college votes, I know better. Even if my vote caused a president to win by 4 electoral college votes, the results would be thrown out and decided elsewhere. In a straight vote, this would not happen.

I'm sure there have been elections that have been decided by fewer electoral votes than that.

In a straight vote, elections can be regionalized even more, and your vote can be even more effectively ignored. Suppose there was a new civil war. For true street flava, let's say this one is between the East Side and the West Side. Hypothetically speaking, let's say the population of the East Side was twice the size of that of the West Side.

Wouldn't you want a president who was able to achieve a broad support base across the whole country? Under a straight voting system, we'd always have whatever cantidate was favored by the East Side. I really don't want such a regionalized system of government.

We should take a look at Brazil's voting system, as they have it right. It's a straight vote, and you are REQUIRED to vote, if you are of age. Exceptions are made if you are sick, etc. The vote is also computerized, in a very good way, with separate databases at each voting site to minimize the impact a hacker could have. Very slick.

You won't hear me ever oppose modernizing the voting system, but I really think a straight vote isn't the way to go. Sure, you may not end up with a president who has a straight numerical majority, but you run that risk any time there's more than 2 cantidates running. However you do end up with someone who has broad enough support, both ideologically and geographically, to effectively govern the country.

Just curious, in Brazil, what do they do to you if you don't vote? Jail time? Monetary fines? Dip you in oil and make you ride naked through the streets on a camel, and then chop off any part of your body that touches the ground? Maybe that's only Iran.

 

[KnowTheToe]

Also, keep in mind that the electoral college reps do not have to vote the same way as their state. It would be political suicide not to, but they are not required.

Plus, simply put, any vote in which a president can be elected by receiving fewer votes than his/her opponent is broken.

Actually a pure vote tally could really throw off the balance of a political system. If you look at our populations centers, national canadates would just need to worry about California and major cities such as Chicago & New York. Rural voters would have no impact in the vote and be completely ignored. Also, take California as an example is a very liberal state with a huge population, their great need or desire for social programs to help the poor would overshadow smaller towns need for industry to support their communities. The needs of this countries people are very diverse and cannot easily be summed up by majority rules.

 

[Greatwyrm]

If you think your vote doesn't count, check the Congressional Record for the 2000 Presidential race. The state of Florida decided the election. George Bush won Florida (please no arguments on this, this is just how it is in the record) by about 500 votes. That's 500 votes out of how many hundreds of thousands of people in Florida. Are you trying to tell me every one of them didn't count?

And for those of you who don't know enough about the candidtates or just don't like any of them, go to the polls, take your ballot, and turn it in blank in protest.

When a politician sees that only 20% or so of people turn out to vote, they probably won't give a rat's flanking position about the other 80%. All they need to do is appease the 20% of motivated voters and to heck with the rest. In fact, they only need half of those, so 11% of registered voters are probably picking your new government right now.

I think a problem a lot of us have is the feeling that the people behind the wheel aren't listening to us. Why should they if most of us aren't saying anything?

 

[Maraxle]

Actually a pure vote tally could really throw off the balance of a political system. If you look at our populations centers, national canadates would just need to worry about California and major cities such as Chicago & New York. Rural voters would have no impact in the vote and be completely ignored. Also, take California as an example is a very liberal state with a huge population, their great need or desire for social programs to help the poor would overshadow smaller towns need for industry to support their communities. The needs of this countries people are very diverse and cannot easily be summed up by majority rules.

Actually it wouldn't change a thing. Politicians would not have to change their focus a bit. The electoral votes are based on population. If you win Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and California, you're pretty much all set. Why waste your time on Vermont's 3 electoral votes, when you can concentrate on the pot of gold that is California? It's not like each state gets one electoral vote, or anything.

 

[Maraxle]

If you think your vote doesn't count, check the Congressional Record for the 2000 Presidential race. The state of Florida decided the election. George Bush won Florida (please no arguments on this, this is just how it is in the record) by about 500 votes. That's 500 votes out of how many hundreds of thousands of people in Florida. Are you trying to tell me every one of them didn't count?

Yeah? And what about the 543895 votes that Gore won by overall?

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

Yeah? And what about the 543895 votes that Gore won by overall?

What about them? Those could easily be bought by giving $500 to every person in the city of El Paso, TX. You're so hung up on this idea that majority = mandate that you're not thinking through all the complexities that go into this sort of a thing. I'm sorry, but electing a president should be a little more complicated than picking the new color of M&M. There's a lot of potential pitfalls that are solved by using an electoral system. The only real downfall is that mess that happened in 2000, but that was more a matter of a state not having set procedures to resolve disputed elections than an inherent flaw in the electoral process.

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

Actually it wouldn't change a thing. Politicians would not have to change their focus a bit. The electoral votes are based on population. If you win Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and California, you're pretty much all set. Why waste your time on Vermont's 3 electoral votes, when you can concentrate on the pot of gold that is California? It's not like each state gets one electoral vote, or anything.

Because if you win those five states, you'll have 167 electoral votes and your opponent will have 371. Besides, as we've already pointed out, the larger states have a much higher voter/electoral vote ratio than the smaller states. That means to win those larger states will cost you more money per electoral vote than it will to win an equivalent number of small states.

 

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Compulsory voting

Just for an international comparison, in Australia it is *compulsory* to vote. If you don’t, you get fined.

Having said that, it’s compulsory to enrol to vote, turn up to a polling station, have your name ticked off and put the papers in the ballot box. It’s not uncommon for people to vote “informal”, that is not fill out or deface their ballot papers. Often a high informal vote is seen as a protest.

Nevertheless, the idea is that with Australian citizenship comes various duties as well as rights – and one of those duties is the duty to vote.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

edit, sorry getting more political than a go vote thread should.