knapplc Posted November 6, 2012 Author Share Posted November 6, 2012 Obama will lose that electoral vote because they redrew the district lines. Gerrymandering at its finest. 2 Link to comment
Undone Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 So why do people even vote if it doesn't mean jack squat? Just to say they expressed their democratic freedom? Wait wait wait. That's not a correct way of looking at it at all. It's just that in smaller states, we don't have as many electoral votes. So if I vote for candidate X, and X gets 51% of the votes in my state, X gets all of the electoral votes allotted to my state. A really small state may have 5 or 6 electoral votes, while California has around 55. A vote in a small state matters. But the majority vote in big state matters even more. Link to comment
zoogs Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Obama will lose that electoral vote because they redrew the district lines. Gerrymandering at its finest. yeah. No matter what people will do what they can to game the system. Sucks. Link to comment
The Dude Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Besides, I've heard that people who wear these get lucky that evening: I threw mine directly into the trash can. No need to be a braggart. Link to comment
knapplc Posted November 6, 2012 Author Share Posted November 6, 2012 And to glom on to Undone's point, I just voted. The candidate I voted for isn't going to win the majority vote in Nebraska, so my vote doesn't contribute to 0.93% of the election as zoogies pointed out, it counts for 0.00%. That's the problem with the electoral college - it makes votes irrelevant when they don't go toward the majority in your particular state. Rather than count for 1:1.14 million of the eligible voters in Nebraska, it counts for 0:1.14 million. Even in Nebraska's extremely liberal electoral vote allocation methodology, my vote, in a largely contrary population, means nothing. I am an American. I get one vote. That vote should count for one vote, no matter which state or district I happen to live in. Link to comment
strigori Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 And to glom on to Undone's point, I just voted. The candidate I voted for isn't going to win the majority vote in Nebraska, so my vote doesn't contribute to 0.93% of the election as zoogies pointed out, it counts for 0.00%. That's the problem with the electoral college - it makes votes irrelevant when they don't go toward the majority in your particular state. Rather than count for 1:1.14 million of the eligible voters in Nebraska, it counts for 0:1.14 million. Even in Nebraska's extremely liberal electoral vote allocation methodology, my vote, in a largely contrary population, means nothing. I am an American. I get one vote. That vote should count for one vote, no matter which state or district I happen to live in. And it would essentially mean less on a popular vote only. 1.7 million people or so in Nebraska, they would barely bother to advertise. All the cities that are 'metered' have a larger population than the state. I think a better fix is making every state split it like Nebraska does. It would give much more importance to minority votes in typical one way states. I also think there needs to be a change on how districts are drawn up to limit the gerrymandering horsecrap. If you look at how any district map is drawn up, the shapes you see do not even have names. Simple strait lines when possible, none of this snaking around BS. Link to comment
knapplc Posted November 6, 2012 Author Share Posted November 6, 2012 I don't care that they advertise at me. I'm intelligent enough that I'll read up on these guys and form my own opinions. Political advertising doesn't mean squat to me - it's just an annoyance, and something to recycle. 1 Link to comment
zoogs Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 It's not about advertising reach and campaign focus so much as it is about representation. Not of the individual, but of each member state of the USA. Within each state your vote counts the same as anybody else's. I mean, it's imperfect. But the president of the USA in the end is chosen by the weighted voices of the constituent states; doesn't that make sense? States have their own - sometimes pretty different - laws and their own - sometimes different - demographics. There are red states and blue states and thus states that fall on varying ends of the political spectrum. It's that collection of voices that decide the presidency, and I think it's good. In terms of effect, it helps out Republican candidates. The US, population wise, is dominated by large urban centers, which tend to have their own political tendencies. No system can be flawless, and the flaws of a straight-up popular vote is to elevate the dominance of the political concerns of heavily populated major cities America, and the populist politician by extension. There are then entire states with their own laws and political tendencies that will really suffer from under-representation in the Executive Office. I do think that every state should follow the districting model, though. I think opening up 'locked' states like TX, CA, MA, NE (of course, combating gerrymandering) would really ensure better representation of more than just the Battleground/'swing states'. While still reflecting the predominant leanings of those heavy red/heavy blues. 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted November 7, 2012 Author Share Posted November 7, 2012 Weighting votes makes no sense. 1 vote = 1 vote. That makes sense. Link to comment
tschu Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 100% agree with Knapp here. As a byproduct of the electoral college, some votes in the U.S. count more than others, which is pretty sad. The electoral college is a remnant of eras past where it was a necessity. Now the world is a smaller place. We're all connected. We don't need it, and it makes for hilarious possibilities such as a candidate winning the popular vote, yet losing the electoral vote in a landslide. Nonsensical. Link to comment
Mavric Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 I don't care that they advertise at me. I'm intelligent enough that I'll read up on these guys and form my own opinions. Political advertising doesn't mean squat to me - it's just an annoyance, and something to recycle. Don't have enough +1s to use on this one. Link to comment
Bradr Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Someone explain to me what the electoral college is. Im ignorant about politics and Im not ashamed to admit it! They're a Division 2 school. I don't know much about their football team, but I'm pretty sure if they played Colorado they'd be favored by at least 21. Well, that's the post of the day for me. Link to comment
zoogs Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Weighting votes makes no sense. 1 vote = 1 vote. That makes sense. This graphic, to me, highlights the importance of weighting in order to get better representation across all the states of the United States of America: population ~ 2011 US Census I guess we may have to agree to disagree, though... I think it's just the 'winner takes all' that gets me. Link to comment
knapplc Posted November 7, 2012 Author Share Posted November 7, 2012 The electoral college is a way to control the voting population, and to give a semblance of a democracy where there actually is none. My vote doesn't choose the next president - it suggests to the electoral college representative controlling my district whom they should vote for. It was put in place in a time when most people were illiterate rubes easily swayed by the most persuasive voice. It was meant as a buffer between the unwashed masses and the nation's elite, those who 'knew how to run the country' and the rest of us. Such a system has no place in a democracy. This either is or it is not a democracy. Period. Link to comment
Recommended Posts