In the USA, in the end, "every vote" does not count

[hopscotch]

So I'm sitting over here in liberal land (southern California) and when I vote for McCain, my vote will most likely be tromped into the ground in the rush to get Obama into office. Of course, that might not happen, but let's just say it will. The next thing that happens is all the votes from the losing party are completely ignored while the winner gets the full number of electoral votes for the state. Not the percentage that would reflect the voters', but a winner-takes-all.

So given that, just how is it that we still keep hearing how "every vote counts"?

I'll vote, because I do, but I don't believe the system works. Any opinions/explanations/thoughts to the contrary? I'd like to know how it's viewed as a good thing.

 

[Hans]

every vote counts, because when people start to think their vote doesnt count, someone gets elected that the people of the land do not want. the entire basis of a democracy is based off of the people electing their leader, if it isnt a full majority, its not living up to the purpose.

aka - If 100,000,000 people decide "my vote doesnt count" some dumbfuck may get elected.

 

[Minor Axis]

I've always been perplexed why voter turnout is so low. Could there be people who think it doesn't matter who is President?

 

[dt3]

The Electoral College should be abolished. It served its purpose, but times have changed.

 

[Minor Axis]

The Electoral College should be abolished. It served its purpose, but times have changed.

When less than 50% of the populace vote? Honestly I do prefer popular vote. Gore would have won and saved us from years of collective national embarrassment.

 

[hopscotch]

every vote counts, because when people start to think their vote doesnt count, someone gets elected that the people of the land do not want. the entire basis of a democracy is based off of the people electing their leader, if it isnt a full majority, its not living up to the purpose.

aka - If 100,000,000 people decide "my vote doesnt count" some dumbfuck may get elected.

I understand the premise, but with the electoral vote, it doesn't make as good of a story.

Let's round off California's population to approximately 36.5 million people. Because I'm being lazy, let's say half of them can, and do vote, so that gives us 18.25 million voters. 55% of them vote for Obama, that's over 10M people. 45% (over 8M) vote for McCain. All of California's 55 Electoral College votes go to Obama. That means over 8 million votes cease to matter in the USA. 40 states have a smaller population than 8 Million.

I still vote, but it doesn't feel like it as soon as I see the entire state being represented as voting for *one* candidate.

 

[hopscotch]

I've always been perplexed why voter turnout is so low. Could there be people who think it doesn't matter who is President?

A lot of them probably live in states so slanted to one side or the other, that they don't feel their vote will count once the opposition wins.

I may assume the majority is what the media presents it to be, but vote anyway on the offhand chance I'm wrong and my vote helps.

 

[hopscotch]

The Electoral College should be abolished. It served its purpose, but times have changed.

:homo:

(By the way, will I get dinged for not merging all these comments into one?)

 

[Fox Mulder]

The electoral college still serves a valid purpose. The reason it exists is so that Presidents don't ignore small states. Let's say that McCain and Obama each have close to the Electoral total needed to win. A small state "on the bubble" will get a lot of attention from both candidates because it could make the difference in the election. However, if it was by popular vote, then the candidates would simply campaign in the large populous area and forget about the small states--they wouldn't matter.

 

[hopscotch]

Belatedly....

Did you think SoCal got much attention from the candidates? I kept hearing about all the ads they were running in other states, but not here.

Given the internet and ability to follow news from all over, I don't think the electoral college is needed. And my vote was handed to Obama on a silver platter.

I think having each vote count is more important that who gets the campaigning attention.

 

[Hans]

I am not disagreeing with your view on the electoal college. It is indeed outdated and should be done away with.

 

[Peter Parka]

I agree with the origional post, Bush got into the White House despite the USA voting higher for his opponent.

 

[AnitaBeer]

I agree that some changes could be made towards the electoral college and the way the process works.

However, this year it wouldn't have mattered had we gone with electoral college votes or popular votes Obama would still be our president elect.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

I thik the electoral college and voter ignorance is the reason turnout is so low.

That and pollsters and the GET OUT AND VOTE folks only target audiences they want to pander to, i.e african americans, hispanics etc.

They expect everyone else to get engaged

The electoral college, need to go away, pollsters need to be beaten to within an inch of their lives because they are totally slanted and inaccurate and "Get Out and Vote" squads should be targetting everyone.

Hell if all a candidate wants is a minority vote.....That's all he/she should get

 

[Peter Parka]

In all trith, there is never a perfect way with voting, we had a bit of a problem at the last election when Conservatives picked up about 60% of the general vote but Labour still won. We do still have a third party, |Liberal though and that is why tactical voting can prove useful, vote for the party most likely to topple the one you dont like where you live. Billy Bragg was a great advocate of this as his confontion with Conservative Oliver Letwin shows.

BBC NEWS | Election 2005 | England | Bragg calls for tactical voting

 

[thatguyjeff]

Minnesota Senate-
Norm Coleman vs. Al Franken
Current count has Coleman by only 206 votes, with a recount coming.