My vote doesn't count

The BBQ Pit
41

Actually this is wrong. There was no problem with ChoicePoint’s barring actual felons from the list, the problem was that Katherine Harris instructed ChoicePoint to set the parameters for excluding people so wide – including people whose names were merely similar to convicted felons’ or who lived near them or who had had their voting rights restored (I am not kidding here) that thousands of legally eligible voters, mostly black and Hispanic, were illegally excluded from the election.

ChoicePoint recently lost a civil suit launched by the NAACP against it and will be cooperating in suits against other responsible parties as a result. I’m hoping to see some Repubs in jail over this eventually, or sued shitless.

42

Because the President is not supposed to be the President of the People of the United States. He’s supposed to be the head of the Executive Branch of a republic of states. The federal government in this country was set up such that those in Congress and in the Executive branch were meant to regulate things between states, which would remain largely independent and that the federal government would deal mainly in inter-state and international matters.

It’s because he’s the President of the United States, and not of ‘the people’ that the states and not the people elect him.

43

Someone asked if there’s a situation that guarantees that a party that lost the popular vote won’t end up as the majority party in the legislature. There is, and it’s called proportional representation.

One variant is used in Spain. Each of its provinces, going by population, is entitled to a certain number of deputies in the Congress. For example, the province (also the autonomous community) of Asturias has 9 seats in Congress; each party, therefore, proposes nine candidates ranked in order.

If in Asturias, the PP gets four-ninths of the vote, PSOE gets one-third, and IE gets the other two-ninths, Asturias elects four PP deputies (the first four on the PP’s list), three PSOE deputies, and two IE deputies.

There are a couple of problems with proportional representation: 1) it obfuscates local concerns - nobody is “your” MP; and 2) since it has the (otherwise good) property of allowing smaller parties to get elected, you often end up with minority governments and shaky coalitions.

Canada badly needs something other than the first-past-the-post system we’ve got now, where the Liberals got 41% of the vote in the last election but 57% of the seats, and the NDP got 8.5% of the vote but 4.3% seats (a neat half of their voting share).

It’s happened before, in the federal election in 1926 in the Manitoba ridings, that the Conservatives got 42% of the votes, by far the majority, and none of the seats. link

I think PR would also cut down on the feeling that your vote isn’t important, and would reduce concerns of vote-splitting that can be so disproportionately harmful to smaller parties.

And since we’ve got this nice big unelected senate sitting around doing nothing, I suggest keeping the House more or less the way it is, and make the Senate PR. I mean, it’s even got 100 seats; we wouldn’t even have to do any math.

44

Also, I’ve been told that a major contributor to the low voter turnout rates in the states is that registering to vote puts you on the list for jury duty, and that a lot of people are too poor/in too shaky an economic status to be able to afford jury duty. Is this sound?

45

(That should be “IU,” not “IE,” naturalmente.)

46

I don’t believe that’s true in every state, Matt. But it’s certainly common belief that’s how it works universally.

I think there’s at least one state that takes it from drivers licenses.

Besides, with ‘Motor Voter’ in place registering to vote is something you have to take action to avoid in some districts.

47

At least where I live, if you get called for jury duty, either through your employer or the courts the majority of your salary has to be made up. And you cannot be fired or penalized for not being at work to be on a jury.

48

In California, I believe that’s how it works. At least, my wife didn’t register but was called for jury duty. snicker. Teach her not to register.

49

I just got a notice for jury duty. On the notice, it said that the list of eligible jurors was compiled from voter registrations, driver’s licenses, and Minnesota ID card holders.

Cite

50

Here’s my monkey wrench:

I didn’t vote for Bush because he’s an idiot or Gore because I don’t believe he would have made a good president. I voted for a third party candidate. I was told by many many people that my vote was thrown away and that I should have voted AGAINST Bush.

I refuse to do that. The Electoral College should be dissolved and popular vote should reign. I personally know many people who would have voted differently, but were afraid their state would go to Bush because the dem and third party votes were split.

My state has not sent a democrat (or any party except republican) to ANY national office in something like 60 years, so my vote wouldn’t have counted regardless of who I voted for. There is something very, heinously wrong with that.

51

Ah, yes… “The countin’ ain’t done 'til our guy won!” How…

different.
Sometimes I think this country is truly fucked. I can’t even imagine what Reconstruction must have been like.

Does anyone remember the aftermath of the Night of the Living Dead Chicago Voter a.k.a. the 1960 election?

From:

Just in case you think I’m quoting from Fox or something :slight_smile:

"It was 8 p.m. in the East and he was already behind. An hour later–with only 8 percent of the vote in and the polls still open in the West–CBS predicted a Kennedy victory. "

"Before midnight back East, the New York Times went to press with a banner headline: KENNEDY ELECTED PRESIDENT. But Nixon kept gaining and soon the race was too close to call. Times Managing Editor Turner Catledge, fearful that he’d be embarrassed by his headline, began to hope, as he later recalled in his memoirs, that “a certain Midwestern mayor would steal enough votes to pull Kennedy through.”

"…Nixon was exhausted. He’d been campaigning nonstop for weeks and he’d barely slept in the last three days. He failed to fall asleep on the plane, and when he got home he found he couldn’t sleep there, either. He built a fire and sat in front of it, pondering what he ought to do about rumors of election fraud. He decided, he later wrote, that it was important that he appear to be a man who could lose gracefully. "

"In his memoir, “Six Crises,” written in 1962, when he was planning a political comeback, Nixon said he made the decision because he feared American prestige would be damaged by suggestions that “the presidency itself could be stolen by thievery at the ballot box.”
When you’re outclassed by Richard Nixon, it’s really time to shut the fuck up…

BTW, I’ve reprogrammed my brain’s “Automatic Dither Cutoff” (thanks Russell Baker) to trigger on the words “Pubbie”, “Shrub”, “Dumbya” and “Repubnicunt” (yep, I’m not making that one up).
-Rav

52

Al Gore himself titled his organization Moveon.org. I’ve taken his advice. I conceded the win when he did. Makes sense to me. Michael Moore was booed at the Oscars not because of his content but because he brought up this dead issue.

53

Happy to. Can’t link to temporary files, but here’s some quotes from the Congressional Record:

Senator Pell (R-RI) - 4/29/93
"The essential fact around which all else revolves is that this is a minority administration. Or, more to the point, the President’s potential adversaries are in a majority. The figures tell the story and bear repeating. President Clinton won the November election with a plurality of 43 percent of the national vote. President Bush got 37.4 percent and Ross Perot 18.9 percent , so together with other minor candidates the opposition took 57 percent of the vote. "

Rep. Solomon (R-NY) - 11/22/93
“Mr. Speaker, the Clinton administration is presently enjoying the 10th month of its 48-month lease on political life. I put it that way because 3 years from next week the American people will be turning down an opportunity to renew that lease… Speaking as part of the 57 percent of the American electorate which did not vote to put Bill Clinton in the White House, far be it from me to explain the motives of the 43 percent who did.”

Sen. Grassley (R-IA) - 3/2/93
"We heard this morning from the President of the United States… He says that we represent `43 votes for gridlock…’ Coincidently, though, Madam President, the number 43 happens to be the same percentage of vote that Mr. Clinton received in November. That, too, I say to you, Madam President, and the Members of this body, was less than a majority. "

And of course, the guy we love to hate:
Rush Limbaugh, on the Letterman show,
“Clinton was not elected. He got 43 percent of the vote.”
http://users.abac.com/ksitterley/rushp.htm

54

Guys, guys, guys. Stop with the savage strawman beatings already. The carnage is appalling, but pointless!

Sure, Bush didn’t win a majority of the votes cast, the real problem is, he got the majority of electoral votes by fraudulent means, ultimately requiting a one-time-only decision by a partisan Supreme Court majority to make it stick. The shenanigans in Florida have been the subject of some very long and detailed threads, I commend you to them if you’re interested.

55

Howyadoin,

So as long as we agree with you, everything’s hunky-dory, am I correct?
Behold, the ultimate arbiter:

:rolleyes:

-Rav

P.S. That “fraudulent” reference really seals the deal, donnit? 'Cause I know you were part of the recount team, and aren’t relying on partisan screeds and dickheads like the Reverends to buttress your unassailable position, right?

Like I said…

:rolleyes:

WTF…

56

MoveOn.org isn’t actually affiliated with Al Gore at all.

57

The simple solution is for everyone to get out and vote on 2004 so George W. Bush loses by an overwhelming majority, so the nation can put the whole thing to rest and write off the Dubya years as a horrible, horrible dream.

Of course, the Republicans will have to put up with hearing “nyahh nyahhs” for the next four years, but they’ll be too busy subverting the presidency of whoever wins to notice (“Call Ken Starr!”), so that will even out.

58

Your vote weighs less on the results of an election than a lottery ticket weighs on the results of the lottery.

Strangely, the lottery would have more impact on your life - and is more likely that your action of buying a ticket will change the outcome of it to your favor. That is, in comparision to an election - where the results will be hardly profound, and is less likely to be swayed by the action of voting.

I consider buying a lottery ticket and voting of near equal uselessness. The lottery ticket being more useful.