I am currently a Dean supporter, though that may change before November 2004; whoever I support will not have the surname Bush. I currently live in Georgia, though I may move to Alabama before 2004. Bush is almost certain to carry both Georgia and Alabama, meaning that the state’s electoral votes will go to him and probably by a landslide.
Questions:
1- Is there any real reason to vote in the presidential election (regardless of how close the candidates are in the national polls) if polls and history show that the other party carries your state by a 3:1 margin?
2- Do you think that more people would vote if we scrapped the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote and do you think that the Electoral College is more or less likely to be done away with after Debacle 2000?
I personally think if the elctoral college was scrapped that more people would feel as if their vote actually counted.
I would vote for no other reason than to have the right to complain about whatever president we get if you disagree with something he does. I have always felt that people who don’t vote shouldn’t have the right to complain when our president does something he disagrees with.
We saw what a minority of people can do in Florida 2000. That’s why your vote, even if it is a minority, is important. If this were a straight majority election, your views would be less relevent. But your vote is important. Vote for everyone, not just yourself.
You’re missing the OP’s point. He (or she) has pointed out that voing Democratic for President in Georgia is a pointless task – the state’s voters, ill-served by a poor education system and overwhelmed by feckless, corrupt Yankees who’ve swarmed into Atlanta’s northern suburbs (most notable example: Newt Gingrich) vote Republican in Presidential elections very, very heavily. So, the vote of Georgians who favor Dems for President have been meaningless in the last several Presidential elections. Pissing in the wind, indeed.
And the only reason to continue voting Dem for President in future elections is this: these things change, and your vote might just make a difference in the next election even though it didn’t in the last one.
As a practical matter, Georgia Dems can probably do ,more to make their opinions heard in an effective way by putting their efforts into helping candidates in closely contested races outside the state, with campaign contributions or whatever.
As to the question in the OP, YES. Always vote. IF you don’t, consider who it is that you are allowing to make the decision.
If you are really concerned about your state’s historical record, however, try getting involved in some “get out the vote” programs. You may find that your state has always voted a certain way, but that it has also been woefully under represented. IOW that far too few people vote, and that most of the ones who don’t are on the fence about issues.
I agree. However, they would be wrong. The electoral college provides more power to individual voeters in most ellections. And more importantly, it prevents very populous regions from dominating the presidential election.
Every vote counts. Flordia is the classic example whe a minority of voters screwed over the rest of the country.
Getting rid of the Electoral College means only 50 percent plus one of the total votes cast would elect the President. It also means presidential candidates will only pander for votes in selected areas to get elected and the rest of the country be damned. At the very least the EC forces candidates to pander to voter throughout the country.
Hardly. The EC forces candidates to pander within states that matter, solidly Republican or Democratic states be damned. I’d bet that my home state of Texas will get less than its deserved share of pandering.
No. Absolutely none. No reason whatsoever.
Don’t bother. Stay in bed. Also wake up to the reality that you have no control over the government or your so called “representatives”.
To your two questions, the answers are: 1. who cares and 2. who cares.
Its the Village Headman model of government we’re talking about here. If you think an elective monarchy, dictatorship, or presidency reflects the will of the people, then go for it.
If you want to believe in it, then do so.
A lot of elected dictators (Hitler) and would be elected dictators (Allende) have gained (or failed to gain) supreme power with much less than 50% of the electoral vote.
In the case of Hitler, 44% of the popular vote. In the case of Allende 38% of the popular vote.
Unfortunately for Allende, the military decided they would not allow themselves to suffer the fate of Cuba’s Batista.
One Succeeded for a number of years (Hitler), one failed (Allende).
Once you realise that your system of government - and all other electoral type governments - are elective dictatorships, then things will become much clearer to you.
No, it’s not that simple. Those people won’t notice if someone votes or not; they’re dead. It makes no practical difference one way or the other.
Voting, like anything else, should be evaluated according to its objective pros and cons. I usually use the “pissed-off” test to see whether to perform a certain task or not. As for voting, it would go like this:
Which would make me more pissed off? If I vote and it doesn’t matter, or if I don’t vote and it would have mattered? Clearly, option 2 makes me more pissed off, so I vote.
We could change that around and claim that it allows for less populous regions to gain too much dominance over presidential elections. The individual voter doesnt get more power. His vote is packed in with all others and he loses power.
As for your link:
I thought the baseball analogy sucked bad... but the above quote summarizes what the author was trying to say. Which is reasonable... but the electoral system doesn't change that much. Therefore in fact politicians can target specific audiences for greater effect. So states that have always had lopsided results are in fact neglected. While voters in states more evenly divided are the one that in fact "have more power".
The OP clearly is one of the voters that has "lost power". His vote has become absolutely irrelevant in the current system.
There are no largest blocs in the US. So the point is null. There are big cities in all US states. Many medium sized cities too. There is no groups advocating only to whites or to specific groups that might dominate the election. The large blocks are wooed anyway since they are easier to target with specific ads and media.
The author keeps repeating the same mantra “more power to the voter” without ever really proving it. His examples are only valid for swing states. He keeps playing around with numbers and then admits that the US is badly districted. That states are too big too work in his model.
Finally I will add my opinion that any system that allows for big differences when you "change" a few hundred votes is heavily in danger of fraud. One small fraud swinging a national election is too big a danger for any democracy. Abolish the current system and in order to cheat you would have to fake millions of votes... not hundreds.
Sampiro… I say you should vote. If Bush wins again without winning a greater number of national votes… then the electoral system might get scrapped. The more the system seems screwed the more chances of it getting scrapped.
Then again remember that polls only tell a part of the truth... that there is always the possibility of people changing their minds in election day. If everyone thinks the way you do... then change will never happen.
Finally when things get totally fucked up... you can say "I voted for the other guy".
Wrong. Presidential elections, while putatively about individuals, actually are held to determine which national party will staff the executive branch of government. They aren’t dictators, they are limited by Congress and the courts. What’s more, in the case of a weak president like Dubya, the staff officers can and do have more power than the Prez. Rumsfeld and Cheney were the one who worked out the plans for Iraq, Dubya just approved it. Your thesis is wrong from the git-go.
Not to start a hijack, but the last election swung on a few thousand votes and a lot of us thought that fraud gave the current occupant of the White House his “victory.” Refer to other threads for lengthy and spirited debate on this issue.
Apathy is the friend of dictators and the enemy of personal freedoms. Get involved in local political issues, stay informed, and by all means vote. It’s frustrating to be in the minority party in your state, but don’t let it turn you into just another of the uninformed and uninvolved rabble.
/hijack
A lot of people think the world is flat or that god stuck the fosils in the earth to trick us. I’ve yet to hear a ration, convincing arguement showing that GW ‘stole’ the election, from someone who was not foaming at the mouth about the issue. And before you puff up, ya, I’ve followed several of the threads on this board about it and seen your comments, EvilCaptor…as well as the comments of others. What it boils down to is, if you are partisan against Bush, the arguements look logical. If you are partisan for Bush, they look like pure bullshit. If you are in the middle, then BOTH sides look covered in shit from the thing. Not that anything would convince YOU…you are immune to arguement on this subject. IMO you are a smart guy (or girl)…but on this subject you are immune to arguement IMO…like many of the folks that truely hate GW.
/end hijack (perminently for me)
As to the OP:
You should always vote. Even if you think it will be a landslide against your prefered candidate, you should get out and vote anyway…and encourage all your friends to do the same. Think about it this way: You are from the South. In the past, the South was pretty solidly Democrat from what I remember. If no one there ever bothered to vote Republican, it would STILL be solidly Democrat…it would never have changed. If you get out there and vote, and encourage others of like mind to you to do the same, things can change. People become dissatisfied with their parties over time, especially people who are either on the fence or out and out Independants…those people can be swayed one way or the other. Now, if everyone who is Democrat like you in your state says “Oh well, no point in voting, the 'Pubs are just gona win anyway”, then the Republicans WILL win…and it will be a land slide. This will only further convince people that your state is so solidly Republican that there is no point in voting Democrat…its a vicious cycle, do you see? So get out there and vote man (or woman)!! Its your civic duty.
Polls and voting trends can create self-fulfiling proficies. If you can’t be bothered with voting, then don’t.
Look at voting statistics in smaller, closely contested states for the answer. In those states, each vote counts more than it would in a popular vote system. If those states have similar voting statistics as other states, then it is unlikely that changing the system would matter. And, no, I don’t think the EC is going away, not in any of our lifetimes. I won’t rehash what I’ve written in a dozen other threads on the subject, but just realize that it would be next to impossible to get the needed constitutional amendment passed. Ain’t gonna happen.
What happens then if the President that you voted for does something you disagree with? Do you have a right to complain?
Sampiro, when I voted in my first Presidential election, Georgia and Alabama and every other Southern state voted solidly for the Democratic candidate. If the Republicans had been discouraged by that and never bothered to vote again, the election would have been quite different in 2000.
There is always hope that it will swing back the other way – or that it will at least begin to swing back. That’s why you vote is important. You will be part of the effort to move it back. You will make a difference one way or the other.
I will tell you another reason for voting. It lifts the spirit. While you are at the polls, look around you. The people and the setting look like something out of a Norman Rockwell painting. And then it hits you how many people are still going to all of the trouble that it takes – even for what may seem like a lost cause – just because so far, we still have a voice and they still believe in the process.
Also, I think that a lot of Southerners may be more open to Wesley Clark because of his credentials. A combination of Dean and Clark (in any order) might have a better chance. And if one of them runs and still doesn’t win your state, a good showing would be encouraging for a more liberal stance another day.
(I hope you like Alabama. You will not have to leave your red clay and pine trees behind. I think it’s lovely.)
I don’t want to start the “rob or didn’t rob the election” debate… but the simple fact that the idea was plausible is a major problem. In nation wide elections small amounts of votes being able to change nation wide results are a clear invitation to tampering, coercion or fraud. If it’s sponsored by the Republican party itself or some local party fanatic on his own doesn’t matter.
One reason for the obligatory vote in Brazil was simply to make fraud too hard to be worthwile. With tens of million of votes there is simply almost no way to "rob" the presidential election. Faking millions of votes would be a dead giveaway.
