Latest responses to “My Vote Does Not Matter Because I Do Not Live In A Swing State” Copyright 2012, MoneyBlueBook.com 443010 2010-05-18T12:57:27-07:00 Tim Of course voting makes no difference. To all those who do, continue if it makes you happy. However, ask yourself "even though I always vote why: 1. Are we engaged in a decade long illegal war that has everyhing to do with money and power struggles between the super elite and super wealthy and nothing to do with what is important everyday in my life. 2. Why do multibillion dollar corporations pay less in taxes than my plumber neighbor? 3. Why do the huge food comglomerates (Monsanto, Cargill etc...) allowed to posion our food, turn out god awful unhealthy franken foods and hold such a monopoly that the family farms that produce the healthiest and least enviornmentally damaging foods are being forced to close. 4. Why does our government allow such a cozy relationship between lobbyist, government officials and corporations that promote nothing but government waste and a few rich people while the rest of us struggle. I could go on, but until their is transparency, honesty and morals in our government, FUCK EM ALL. 443000 2008-11-13T20:58:59-08:00 Ellen Imagine the nightmare of a CLOSE election by popular vote! Multiply Florida's 2000 hanging-chad problem by 50, and likewise, multiply the subsequent screaming and bitterness. Comparing the good points of plan B with the bad points of plan A is all very well, but the downside of direct popular vote could - every once in a while - be utter chaos. 442990 2008-11-07T15:18:33-08:00 Jeffrey Stingerstein "Wouldn't the folks in the Midwest states as you mentioned want their voices heard as well on an equal footing with every other voter in the United States? Or do they somehow want their voices heard on a greater level and via a greater unequal proportion than the more democratic 1 man 1 vote system?" If they put such an amendment forth, I would be happy to see the results. I do 100% believe that such an amendment would be shot down by every single small state. Plus it needs to pass the Senate and the House first, which would not happen. I disagree with you, but I do fully understand your points and think that they are valid. I just think that if an election really was decided by popular vote you would discover that the candidates would focus almost exclusively on big states and big cities, because that is where the vast majority of people live. However, small states have needs that only people from small states understand. Asking them to give up their "disproportionate" influence over the presidency is the same as asking them to give up their disproportionate influence in the Senate. It will never happen. That is why I favor States splitting their electoral votes over giving up the electoral system. I think it is the best compromise and I think that it was wise for the Founding Father to create the electoral system to begin with. You and I will have to agree to disagree, but I too would fully support any effort to have it brought to a ratification of the States and I think the small States would shoot it down with tremendous opposition. 442980 2008-11-07T14:52:51-08:00 Raymond Well Jeffrey, I'm from Maryland, a rather small state in comparison to the larger electoral rich neighbors in the area. However, even I support an electoral college change despite residing in a tiny state. To be fair, Maryland's views at large tend to be shared by those in other solid blue states like New York and New Jersey. I support such an amendment or abolition of the existing electoral college system because I actually want my vote to stand for something. Wouldn't the folks in the Midwest states as you mentioned want their voices heard as well on an equal footing with every other voter in the United States? Or do they somehow want their voices heard on a greater level and via a greater unequal proportion than the more democratic 1 man 1 vote system? Because when you create a system where elections are more dependent on swing state votes than on the national popular vote, you are essentially offering what is tantamount to 2-3 votes per person in those swing states than you are to everyone else in other solid blue or red states... 442970 2008-11-07T11:37:06-08:00 Jeffrey Stingerstein I heard similar arguments against the electoral college system after the 2000 election by a number of Democrats and my position on it has not changed. As one person already commented, how the electoral votes are distributed can be changed without changing the constitution, but I am against removing the system entirely. My reason is simple. The people of NYC do not know the needs of the people of Iowa, Idaho, Missouri, Montana and elsewhere. Of course NYC have a far greater population, which is shown by the fact that NYS has so many more electoral votes than, say, Montana. In addition, a Constitutional Amendment is never going to happen because you need a good number of the "small" states to ratify it, but it is the small states that would lose out. 442960 2008-11-06T14:23:14-08:00 Eric Here's a great site that examines the pros and cons of the Electoral College System... Although, as a Californian, I am trending towards it's abolition, there are actually reasonable explanations for it's initial adoption and it's continued use.: (link) The reality is, when we go into that voting booth, we're not just voting for one thing, we have a duty to participate in all of the options we have in front of us: Congress, State offices, Local offices, Governorships, propositions... look at your own state's voting totals and look at how many more votes are cast for president compared to oter state wide choices. We don't put a real value on the vote and the fact that more people voted for president 48 years ago than did today even though our country has grown in size dramatically. A much more important thing would be to modernize our elections by moving them to a weekend or making them mulitple days long increasing access to the polls. In Palo Alto, CA there were 2 polling places within 3 blocks of one another. So, there were no lines. When I hear about 4 and 5 hour waits to vote in some areas, I'm stupified. There's more we can do to fix our elections than just throwing out the electoral college... Something to think about. 442950 2008-11-06T14:12:58-08:00 threadbndr(Karla) As a person in one of the 'rural states with a small population', I'm of two minds about abolishing the current system. We in the "flyover" middle of the country are already ignored by both coasts for the most part. I am not sure I want to see us even more disenfranchised. But I do agree that the electoral college system is outdated and probably needs to be abolished. The idea of an elected VP fascinates me. I'd never considered it before. The problem would arise that the President and Vice President need to work closely together and it's possible that bitter rivals might be elected together. But then, as Ron pointed out (or as in memory with Kennedy and LBJ), that has been the case in the past and has not been impossible to work around. 442940 2008-11-05T16:45:32-08:00 susan National Popular Vote has nothing to do with whether the country has a "republican" form of government or is a "democracy." A "republican" form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). The United States has a "republican" form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as is currently the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as is currently the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill). If a "republican" form of government means that the presidential electors exercise independent judgment (like the College of Cardinals that elects the Pope), we have had a "democratic" method of electing presidential electors since 1796 (the first contested presidential election). Ever since 1796, presidential candidates have been nominated by a central authority (originally congressional caucuses, and now party conventions) and electors are reliable rubberstamps for the voters of the district or state that elected them. 442930 2008-11-05T12:52:52-08:00 debmc Very interesting entry, and comments. While we're at it, in addition to giving strong consideration to abolishing the electoral college (which I don't think will happen anytime soon for many reasons, not the least of which includes how complex and even more expensive campaigning would be for the candidates), after what we saw this year, we ought also to consider opening the popular vote to the V.P. as well as the Presidency. Why should the person standing next in line to be the leader of the free world be the choice of the candidate? I would think that in a rather enlightened and intelligent society, we should take the choice of second in line much more seriously. Thoughts? 442920 2008-11-04T18:16:22-08:00 Ron We're not a democracy. Never have been (Article 4 Section 4). A democracy is chaos, two wolves and one sheep deciding what's for dinner. We have a representative republic patterned after a Presbyterian form of church government that started back in the 1600's. We used to not even elect the President or VP, the Congress did. And the VP was the guy who came in 2nd! We used to not even elect our Senators, they were chosen by state legislatures (changed by the 17th amendment). But while there is precedent for changing our election procedures, I don't see it happening!