|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
OP
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
I turned 18 in 2000. I registered to vote, felt very proud, like it mattered.
Then all that Florida crap happened.
No matter which side you support, or what you think happened down south, one thing has never been contested: Gore received more votes nationwide.
Ever since we're children in this country we're told that we get to pick the president, but that clearly is a lie. The electoral college removes the "simple" voter from the presidential election and puts in the hands of a representative.
To me, that's bullshit, so I won't be voting in any national elections from here on out.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
To do that would only further empower those who stand against the common man.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
OP
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
To do that would only further empower those who stand against the common man.
But to waste the time voting when the votes won't can't is even worse.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
So vote for a change to those unfair laws. Unless you do vote, those who would subvert the will of democracy will be triumphant.
Until the early 1970s, Australia was a right wing conservative government and had been for 30 years. It instituted the White Australia immigration policy, the draft, and other ignoble things. Australians voted for change: a tidal wave of change swept through and elected a Labour prime minister who instituted family laws, stopped the draft, allowed immigration on merit, stopped business monopolies, and many other good things. Democracy in action can be awesome.
Think on this: Tomorrow in Hong Kong somewhere between 100000 to 250000 people will march demanding the right to vote - HK is the only place in China that such protests are permissable. What they want, you have as a right. Don't blow it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
I like the electoral system. As someone who doesn't live in L.A. or NYC Metroplex, I like that MY vote counts. If it wasn't for the electoral college, no presidential candidate would do anything for the South or the Midwest. He'd pander to the Eastern seaboard and Southern California. Maybe making a few swings through the populated areas in between like Detroit, Chicago, Houston, and Dallas. But because a POTUS presumed has to piece together a big puzzle of electoral votes instead of just trying to pull popular votes, we get candidates speaking in lodges in New Hampshire, barn halls in Iowa, and factories in Kansas. I think that provides for BETTER democracy. One bad election does not a system break. I don't feel this subverts the will of democracy (The system itself. I don't see the point in arguing Bush v.Gore). I feel it makes it more of a representation based on population, and not just a straight popular vote. So are you "wasting" your vote? If you are a DEM in a strongly "red" state, probably. If you are a GOP in a strongly "blue" state, probably. If you live in Florida or Pennsylvania, your state could go either way. Whomod is correct in his own, interesting way. ![[wink]](images/icons/wink.gif) The people who will decide they aren't going to vote will likely be from the possible left voters. That will leave the strongest base to the GOP (I'm assuming we are "those who stand against the common man."). Because the GOP base votes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
|
|
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240 |
If we don't have the electoral college then states like California and New York would have too high an impact on politics. the electors are there to balance the needs of all 50 states. And for the umpteenth time Bush did not steal the election..those were democratically controlled areas, and Gore Lost in some. I don't even like Bush quite honestly, but he didn't steal anything. If there was a true and provable case do you honestly think the democrats wouldn't be licking their chops to get Bush out of office? They just say stuff like "elected" president to rally the crowd.
Trust me, if the Democrats knew Bush lost then he would be out of office. They're just pissed they won the poular, but lost the electorate.
Your vote matters, because as long as you are voting politicians believe you may be paying attention. The less people who vote make them more willing to do unscrupulous things. he more voters there are theoretically means the more accountable they can become...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,799 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,799 Likes: 40 |
I agree that what happened in 2000 really sucked but if more people had voted the results would have been better & not hinged on the Supreme Court decision.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
quote:
Originally posted by r3x29yz4a:
I turned 18 in 2000. I registered to vote, felt very proud, like it mattered.
Then all that Florida crap happened.
No matter which side you support, or what you think happened down south, one thing has never been contested: Gore received more votes nationwide.
Ever since we're children in this country we're told that we get to pick the president, but that clearly is a lie. The electoral college removes the "simple" voter from the presidential election and puts in the hands of a representative.
To me, that's bullshit, so I won't be voting in any national elections from here on out.
You're simplifying things too much. Yes the elctoral college is bullshit. But it serves it's purpose and has been for many years. It favors the democratic party just in case you were wondering The states with the most electoral votes all lean democratic.....if we had elections based on popular votes no Democrat would ever be President again. Blame the media for the last election.......half of northwestern Florida which is almost 100% Republican didn't even vote yet because it's in a different time zone when media outlets started calling the state for one candidate or the other.......the people figured it was too late to vote.
One vote does make a difference so go out there and do your part.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
Actually, that isn't true about the biggest electoral states being DEM strongholds.
The DEMS have California and NY to be sure, but the GOP has Texas and Ohio.
Penn and FL are in play.
The interesting thing is, the Electoral College USE to help the DEMS because they were popular in the South and the Midwest. Now those are firmly Red states.
No common men in either of those geographical regions, I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
I hope you're not falling for that whole "the Democratic Party is the party of the common man" bullshit.
I agree that the electoral college is very necessary. Without it most of the states might not as well vote due to the large populations of New York and California. New York City has a higher population than many states. So, the electoral college is a good way to balance everything out.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
OP
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Yes there are more people in NY and California, and they lean (mostly) left. Yes that would give an advantage to the democrats, but isn't that the point of democracy? Majority rule. Highest number of votes wins.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
Then we'd need to get rid of the Senate as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
quote:
Originally posted by r3x29yz4a:
Yes there are more people in NY and California, and they lean (mostly) left. Yes that would give an advantage to the democrats, but isn't that the point of democracy? Majority rule. Highest number of votes wins.
But people in California have no concept of what is needed for the people in Nebraska to keep their farms going. And people in New York have no idea of the need that many mid-western states have on the federal government. The electorial college makes sure that everyone gets what they need and their voices heard. No, there might not be as many people in Nebraska as California; but the crops in Nebraska are just as important to the entire nation's economy and well being as the software industry in Silicon Valley is. The electorate system makes damn sure that this is taken into account and that every voice becomes important and is heard.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 37
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 37 |
EXACTLY!!! With the current system, the candidates can't ignore the Midwest. I also want to mention that if Gore had won his own state, Florida would have been a moot point.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
Plus, the values are different in the midwest than they are in the major Eastern cities and god knows what they are thinking in California.
That is why I am always puzzled when the DEMS are called the party of the working man. Aren't there any working men and women in the South and the Midwest?
I think a more accurate statement is the DEMS are the party of the UNION working man.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
quote:
Originally posted by thedoctor:
quote:
Originally posted by r3x29yz4a:
Yes there are more people in NY and California, and they lean (mostly) left. Yes that would give an advantage to the democrats, but isn't that the point of democracy? Majority rule. Highest number of votes wins.
But people in California have no concept of what is needed for the people in Nebraska to keep their farms going. And people in New York have no idea of the need that many mid-western states have on the federal government. The electorial college makes sure that everyone gets what they need and their voices heard. No, there might not be as many people in Nebraska as California; but the crops in Nebraska are just as important to the entire nation's economy and well being as the software industry in Silicon Valley is. The electorate system makes damn sure that this is taken into account and that every voice becomes important and is heard.
This statement says it best......well spoken doctor.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
OP
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
quote:
Originally posted by thedoctor:
quote:
Originally posted by r3x29yz4a:
Yes there are more people in NY and California, and they lean (mostly) left. Yes that would give an advantage to the democrats, but isn't that the point of democracy? Majority rule. Highest number of votes wins.
But people in California have no concept of what is needed for the people in Nebraska to keep their farms going. And people in New York have no idea of the need that many mid-western states have on the federal government. The electorial college makes sure that everyone gets what they need and their voices heard. No, there might not be as many people in Nebraska as California; but the crops in Nebraska are just as important to the entire nation's economy and well being as the software industry in Silicon Valley is. The electorate system makes damn sure that this is taken into account and that every voice becomes important and is heard.
And, the farmers have no idea what the people in the cities need to survive. Bottom line is that it's supposed to be one person one vote.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
quote:
Originally posted by r3x29yz4a:
And, the farmers have no idea what the people in the cities need to survive. Bottom line is that it's supposed to be one person one vote.
And that's how it works. I get one vote to decide how my state is going to represent me in the electorial college. It's a balance that is needed or else farm subsidies could be erradicated causing our nation's crops to dwindle and drive prices for goods made from them through the roof all due to the fact that some New Yorker doesn't know that cotton or corn is important to our economy. It works. Despite what people bitch and moan about, it works.
If we didn't have it in place, it's cause a lot of troubles come election time. Clinton didn't win a majority of the popular votes when he ran. Thanks to the electorial college, we didn't need a run-off election to decide it because he won a majority of the electorate.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
Since when? This newfangled Electoral College System is only about 200 years old.
Why do you suppose it is "supposed to be one person one vote"? Where does that notion come from? The people who invented modern democracy were the same people who thought this was the best possible system. It isn't a modern contraption that goes against the nature of modern democracy.
It IS one person, one vote. Bascially, you are voting not for Gore or Bush, but conducting a state election (or district in a few states) to determine which slate of electors your state will send to the Electoral College (which is almost as popular as the College of Cardinals, but more of a "party college".)
Then each state, in proportion to its population, casts its votes for one single person. It is the ultimate form of representative democracy in a Republic form of government (remember, we are a collection of states with a centralized federal government).
It is the same thing, as I said earlier, where the Senate provides two votes for each state even though there are fewer people in the state of Montana than in the city of Chicago.
It is a representative democracy that works much better than any system of government in the history of mankind.
It is also not the first time someone has won the popular but failed to gather the electoral votes needed to get the top job.
So while the farmers of Nebraska don't know what the city folk of Los Angles need (and vice versa), by this integrated system the needs of the whole country are adequately represented. It is win-win.
Best possible system.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
I agree that having an electorial college does a good job of allowing lower populated states to have a say, but doesn't it also stand that by doing that, it reduces the say of the individuals in higher populated states. In other words, a midwestern individual holds a heavier vote than a New Yorker. Not very fair, IMO.
Seems like the 'answer' provides a reversal of misfortune.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
But the heavier populated states still hold more say than the lower populated states since the House of Representatives is based on population. The electorate is just one way of making the playing field a little more even for the rest of the country.
I only hear the whining about this come election time. No one really seems to mind about it the rest of the time. It's a system that's worked over 200 years. People have moaned about it before; but the fact that no one has done anything about changing it shows that it's not that bad of a deal, aparrently
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
I wouldn't say that was true, Wed.
Doesn't each single electoral vote represent a certain amount of voters?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Good points, doctor and Big. I still don't care for the election process (Dade County, Miami, FL had ballots thrown out like bad fish in 2000) but I'll still vote. A muffled voice is better than silence.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
|
|
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240 |
A representative republic is what the united states is. Key media words and phrases are planted purposefully in our subconscious..such as we are a "democracy", we have "seperation of church and state", etc.. These are ideals with many variant meanings. They each conotate something to each individual and those key words are meant to do just that. I suggest everyone should read any of a large list of books on media and the power of the media. Just check Amazon I'm sure there are dozens.
A Representative republic is meant to protect The minority, the fringe religious groups, the power of individual states, etc. If we didn't have a representative republic how many civil wars would we have faced as a nation? Plenty. The powers of the individual states must be solidified to have a strong union and federation of states..Making us "United". Anything else would be chaotic and lead to instability. The same power that gives low population states relevance has also kept majority groups like the Mormons in Utah from dominating civil issues..like gambling or whatever. Because we are in this Representative status..it also allows the federal government the power to stick it's nose in individual state business like when the majorities in a state vote for items that are unfair to minority groups. It can't be a double standard.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
How can giving more importance to people living in isolated areas be representative?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
|
|
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240 |
The past congresses have studied the districts of electors and they have all agreed with teh way they are set up now, with I'm sure only minor quibbles. If states that only had a million population, a state that produced 1/3 of US grain supplied to other US states, didn't have a say in the political process it might be mad. Anyway, all states have powers and we need represenattive government to protect the interests of each state. if the federal Gov wanted to pass a law that taxed cheese because it makes you fat. You better believe that politicians would be looking at how the wisconsin and minnesota voters would react. Just because other Americans want to be rid of the deadly cheese...it may not be in wisconsin's interest and representative govt is the only buffer they have.
If a small state doesn't have equal or comparative representation why not try to leave the union?? If the people aren't represented, why should they pay taxes to the federal govt. That's called taxation without representation, and that's one of the reasons the US was created.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
How can giving more importance to people living in isolated areas be representative?
Becuase, though we don't think of it in this way much anymore, the United States is a collective of 50 sovereign states unified under a single federal system.
Plus, as stated earlier, it really isn't THAT much extra importance given to South Dakota voters
over NYC voters. Each electoral vote granted to each state generally represents a certain amount of voters. So it may be off give or take a few hundred, but it is close.
I'd agree with you that it was grossly unbalanced if Montana had the SAME NUMBER of electoral votes as Florida. But given that they have 3 while Florida has 25, it balances itself out.
Also, a sidenote, the Bush favored states from 2000 have gained quite a few electoral votes as a result of the 2000 Census. Population shifts to the South, primarily harming the Gore States, will give Bush an extra boost in 04.
Also, if Bush had won Florida by 3000 votes or more, and still lost the Popular vote, would people be as disheartened?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
|
|
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308 |
Why can't you be more tolerant of my intolerance?
November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
|
|
|
|
|
