Do you actually believe YOUR vote for POTUS matters?

Your vote matters regardless of whether your candidate or favored proposition is going to win. It's an exercise of your right to the franchise.

It doesn't give you the right to have your candidate win, it simply gives you a voice.

As to the electoral college, it is outdated. The only people who should want to hold onto it are conservatives. Without it, they very well may not have had a single POTUS since George H.W. Bush.

Dragonfly said:

No. Your vote for your senator or congressman/woman is a direct vote for that person.
Same with all other state level elections.

Your personal vote for POTUS does not elect the POTUS.

It may, or may not have an effect on the Electoral College outcome.

But those Electoral College votes are happening regardless of your vote.

Click to expand...

When the Electoral Vote and the Popular Vote Differ | IIP Digital

Click to expand...

In other words,as I already said,my vote matters as much or as little as any other vote.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

Northern Virginia outweighs the rest of the state, and it will remain blue forever.

Any republican presidential vote from Virginia Beach is meaningless.

Dragonfly said:

Who actually elects the POTUS?

Private citizens? (popular vote)
Electoral College?
Combination of the two?

Something else?

Do you honestly and truly believe YOUR vote (for POTUS) matters?

Do you believe if you don't vote for POTUS the outcome will be different?

Do you believe your vote changes anything?

Click to expand...

Not really, but I do believe it is still important. I believe that by taking part in the process you legitimize your opinion of the process. Or phrased another way, if you don't vote your opinion is worthless.

I fully support and endorse one's right to not vote, but if you don't I don't want to hear your opinion.

I've said this before; in the northwest, the election is generally over before our polls close.

People talk about election reforms, such as: a national election holiday, polls all over the country moving to a uniform closing time, and even the popular vote; but little ever happens to change anything about the election process.

Dragonfly said:

Who actually elects the POTUS?

Click to expand...

Electoral college. These days, the electors are selected by the citizens via voting.

In case you missed it, a President can lose the popular vote and still win the election (e.g. Bush v Gore).

Thus endeth the Civics 101 lesson.

My own vote does not matter a great deal, as I live in an area where most voters share my electoral preferences. But yes, it still counts, a bit more for local elections than national.

Visbek said:

Electoral college. These days, the electors are selected by the citizens via voting.

In case you missed it, a President can lose the popular vote and still win the election (e.g. Bush v Gore).

Thus endeth the Civics 101 lesson.

My own vote does not matter a great deal, as I live in an area where most voters share my electoral preferences. But yes, it still counts, a bit more for local elections than national.

Click to expand...

actually you elect the electors which are chosen by the political parties.

in early america the electors where elected by the people, by either state wide or by district elections, the parties took the electoral college over.

the EC vote in December

I believe all votes should matter...

However, being in California any vote other than Democrat in the upcoming election is pretty much worthless.

Rich, right wing elite have moved mountains to suppress voting of varying groups around the country, yet you still have poor, working, and middle class people who think their votes don't matter. That **** kills me, you need to vote far more than some rich guy. Anti-voting propaganda has served the plutocrats well though, I will admit that.

Get off your lazy butt and vote for (NOT against, BUT FOR) your interests.

Dragonfly said:

Who actually elects the POTUS?

Private citizens? (popular vote)
Electoral College?
Combination of the two?

Something else?

Do you honestly and truly believe YOUR vote (for POTUS) matters?

Do you believe if you don't vote for POTUS the outcome will be different?

Do you believe your vote changes anything?

Click to expand...

Yes, I live in a swing state. I also feel a moral and civic pride in voting even when there isn't a chance in hell my vote could tip the scales. That being said I understand why it might be demoralizing to be a Republican voting in New York voting in a Presidential election, or a Democrat in Alabama doing the same. I'm very open to proposals to reform the electoral college---within reason. Which is a position I've shifted a lot on.

Not anymore.

Master PO said:

actually you elect the electors which are chosen by the political parties.

in early america the electors where elected by the people, by either state wide or by district elections, the parties took the electoral college over.

the EC vote in December

Click to expand...

Edit an error, electors are chosen by the legislatures of the states in early america by election of ballot not by political parties that took over the electoral college

Sherman123 said:

Yes, I live in a swing state. I also feel a moral and civic pride in voting even when there isn't a chance in hell my vote could tip the scales. That being said I understand why it might be demoralizing to be a Republican voting in New York voting in a Presidential election, or a Democrat in Alabama doing the same. I'm very open to proposals to reform the electoral college---within reason. Which is a position I've shifted a lot on.

Click to expand...

I live in a swing state also, and I'll admit that does help my mindset, though I thoroughly agree about the civic pride thing if you live in a far/left/right state.

TheGoverness said:

I'm pretty sure my vote won't change much of anything.

Click to expand...

That wasnt the question, the question was does it MATTER.
Regardless of whether your vote directly impacts the election results, it still matters.
Politicans dont bother listening to what people who dont vote want, because they can have an effect on the results.

Dragonfly said:

Who actually elects the POTUS?

Private citizens? (popular vote)
Electoral College?
Combination of the two?

Something else?

Do you honestly and truly believe YOUR vote (for POTUS) matters?

Do you believe if you don't vote for POTUS the outcome will be different?

Do you believe your vote changes anything?

Click to expand...

No, not really, it's one vote. Still, it goes towards the candidate I feel is the best candidate of the bunch, the one that can do the best job, the one that will benefit the Republic the most, the one that best echoes my own personal political platform.

I think voting third party does send a bit of a stronger message, but only if that voting starts to encroach upon significant gains (as where Johnson is polling currently, even 8-10% can swing the election). But is my personal, singular vote going to really make much of a difference? No, it just becomes part of the overall statistics, it's all I'm feeding into. To change the system, you have to affect those statistics, and those won't change if enough people just blindly vote Republocrat.

But not voting isn't an option, and supporting the status quo isn't an option, so I'm left with the fact that I have to vote, if I want any say in this Republic and its future, I have to vote. But I cannot vote for the establishment. So while Johnson won't win in the end, I really have no other choice than to vote for him. My vote and my endorsement won't matter in the end, these things are decided by thousands and tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of votes. But it's my vote, my duty, my responsibility to the Republic and despite the fact that it won't change things, I take that responsibility seriously.

Praxas said:

Overall I would say the vote doesn't count simply because most states don't have rules that the electoral college has to follow the popular votes or the states have a straight win all rule.

Click to expand...

I believe the majority of states do in fact have rules that bind the EC vote to the popular vote. IMO, this is a mistake. The EC was created to give a bit of cushion against popularism.

Ikari said:

I believe the majority of states do in fact have rules that bind the EC vote to the popular vote. IMO, this is a mistake. The EC was created to give a bit of cushion against popularism.

Click to expand...

The violation for breaking that is a misdemeanor and small fine. Not exactly the deterrence from committing such an act and it of course has to be proven and money spent in court to do so.

and while technically a majority I think only 26 states are bound by that.

Praxas said:

The violation for breaking that is a misdemeanor and small fine. Not exactly the deterrence from committing such an act and it of course has to be proven and money spent in court to do so.

Click to expand...

OK, but those laws do exist. So your original statement is in error.

Ikari said:

OK, but those laws do exist. So your original statement is in error.

Click to expand...

In 26 states yes. so not in error of a lot of states.

Praxas said:

In 26 states yes. so not in error of a lot of states.

Click to expand...

What's with the goal post moving. You said "most states don't have rules that the electoral college has to follow the popular votes", that's incorrect. The majority of states have rules against it. Plus when was the last time an EC didnt' go the way of the popular vote? 2004 apparently in MN, an electorate voted John Edwards for President instead of Kerry. In 2000 one DC electorate didn't vote as protest...I mean, you're looking at rare events with very limited numbers. Some of the biggest faithless elector events revolved around a candidate having died before the EC vote took place. You have to go to 1836 to see a case of faithless elector influencing the race.

Not only is it pretty much a non-issue, the reason for the EC being split from the popular vote was an added level of protection against popularism. There shouldn't be rules against EC voting differently from the population.

Dragonfly said:

Who actually elects the POTUS?

Private citizens? (popular vote)
Electoral College?
Combination of the two?

Something else?

Do you honestly and truly believe YOUR vote (for POTUS) matters?

Do you believe if you don't vote for POTUS the outcome will be different?

Do you believe your vote changes anything?

Click to expand...

Having voted since 1961, I don't think it has much effect. I don't think Presidents have instant automatic control, and may not even have control. A bureaucracy is a system where you put something in today and its' output doesn't happen for perhaps years, and may be changed exceedingly during the bureaucratic manipulations. One exception and that being GWBush who managed to singlehandedly initiate trillions of dollars worth of wars on false pretenses.

Ikari said:

I believe the majority of states do in fact have rules that bind the EC vote to the popular vote. IMO, this is a mistake. The EC was created to give a bit of cushion against popularism.

Click to expand...

I've always interpreted it as intending to balance influence between urban and rural regions/states.

radcen said:

I've always interpreted it as intending to balance influence between urban and rural regions/states.

Click to expand...

It does help give consideration to lower populated region/states as well, and that's necessary too. You can't just focus on heavily populated cities and the rest of the nation be damned, else you get things like Chicago and the rest of Illinois. But if that were the only intent, then the EC would have been bound to the popular vote from the start, specifically written into the constitution. It wasn't because it was intended to protect against popularism as well, the idea of the faithless elector existed even back then.

And it fits in with the general strategy/action of the founders. They built in things like Jury-Nullification too, which is similar, yes? The idea that the jury isn't there just to judge the accused, but also the law the accused is being held to. There were meant to be a lot of checks and double-checks. The founders feared popularism, they understood the failings of a pure democracy. There needs to be some protectionism against it. Not a complete isolationism, mind you, the will of the people must have some impact. And even in the case of the faithless elector, we see that mostly the will of the people is followed. I think I dug up that the last time faithless electors really swung an election (outside a candidate dying before the EC is cast) was in 1836.

So the faithless elector was purposefully put in to protect against popularism, but for the faithless elector to swing an election, there is going to need to be an aggregate motion large enough to do so, for the most part they don't change the results.

Ikari said:

The majority of states have rules against it.

Click to expand...

http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=967

There is no federal law that requires electors to vote as they have pledged, but 29 states and the District of Columbia have legal control over how their electors vote in the Electoral College. This means their electors are bound by state law and/or by state or party pledge to cast their vote for the candidate that wins the statewide popular vote. At the same time, this also means that there are 21 states in the union that have no requirements of, or legal control over, their electors.

Click to expand...

However, these violators often only face being charged with a misdemeanor or a small fine, usually $1,000.

Click to expand...

So how many electors could be bought by simply having Trump/Clinton (or R/D party) simply agree to pay the $1000 fine?

Then there's this:

Many constitutional scholars agree that electors remain free agents despite state laws and that, if challenged, such laws would be ruled unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

So....it could be really interesting to see what happens.

Dragonfly said:

FairVote - States that bind electors






So how many electors could be bought by simply having Trump/Clinton (or R/D party) simply agree to pay the $1000 fine?

Then there's this:



So....it could be really interesting to see what happens.

Click to expand...

This could have been said of any election cycle. The Republocrats are quite powerful and well funded indeed. But what HAS happened? Not much. Faithless electors haven't swung an election (barring the death of a candidate before the EC was cast) since 1836.

So again, the majority of states have laws to hold the elector to the popular vote (a bad decision IMO) and faithless electors haven't had a large impact, certainly not in the modern era.