vote in november

[jefhatfield]

if not for the white house, vote for other things

in 88, nobody captured me per se so i didn't vote for anyone but i did vote on the other things

it's sad that our vote does not count directly for the president, but in other issues it does count directly and perhaps can make more difference to your life...fyi...the president is elected by a little group of over five hundred individuals...and if not by them and contested, then the president is to be chosen by congress and/or the supreme court...popular vote never plays into it

in my home state of california, there have been some major "issues" to say the least that got worldwide attention and those "issues" make more difference to people in our state than who occupies the white house

with 12 years of reagan/bush and some untypically conservative viewpoints from the bluedog new democrats (clinton and gore), states' rights are the rule of the day and your individual local issues are more in your hands than ever

man, we had a rollercoaster governor's recall and election that was on the news 24/7 and unless you live under a rock, all know who our governor is, like him or not ;)

the good thing is people got out to vote for a change ;)

[Neserk]

Too bad he was a bad change. Has he done *anything* besides cut down on the cost of renewing your car tags and double the price of renewing your driver's license?

[Chip NoVaMac]

Very right on. Even if Kerry does win in November, without a wholesale change in politics in Washington and at the state level - nothing will happen.

[themadchemist]

it's sad that our vote does not count directly for the president, but in other issues it does count directly and perhaps can make more difference to your life...fyi...the president is elected by a little group of over five hundred individuals...and if not by them and contested, then the president is to be chosen by congress and/or the supreme court...popular vote never plays into it

I don't think that's true. In 49 of the 50 states, I believe, the electoral college is required by law to vote according to the results of the popular vote. That is, if a candidate wins a state by popular vote, he automatically receives the electoral vote. In those states, the electoral college merely ratifies the decision of the people. In the other state, I think the electoral college usually does the same, but I'm not sure.

The real significance of the electoral college system is that it changes the math of the voting process. Smaller states become more significant and margins of victory become insignificant.

[wordmunger]

The depressing thing about the Electoral College is if you're in a state where the race isn't close, then your vote doesn't seem to "matter" as much, and also, you hear much less from the candidates, who tend to focus on "battleground" states. Interestingly, with Edwards from North Carolina, my state has shifted from being an easy win for Bush to a battleground. It would be fun to see a Kerry/Edwards rally here, and it's seeming more and more likely that it will happen.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I don't think that's true. In 49 of the 50 states, I believe, the electoral college is required by law to vote according to the results of the popular vote. That is, if a candidate wins a state by popular vote, he automatically receives the electoral vote. In those states, the electoral college merely ratifies the decision of the people. In the other state, I think the electoral college usually does the same, but I'm not sure.

The real significance of the electoral college system is that it changes the math of the voting process. Smaller states become more significant and margins of victory become insignificant.

From: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761576768_1____2/Electoral_College.html#s2

In about half the states, electors are formally “pledged”—that is, they are legally committed to vote for the candidate of the party with which they are affiliated. In the remaining states, electors are “unpledged,” meaning that no explicit legal requirement exists to vote for the affiliated candidate. Still, even unpledged electors could face legal difficulties if they “faithlessly” voted for a candidate other than the one associated with their slate of electors. This is because the people of the state voted for that slate of electors with the reasonable expectation that those electors would loyally reflect the peoples’ choice. In fact, the problem of “faithless electors” has been more theoretical than real. About 20,000 electors voted in all presidential elections from 1789 to 2000, and fewer than a dozen voted faithlessly. The outcome of an election has never been changed by faithless electors—nevertheless, it could happen.

[Chip NoVaMac]

The depressing thing about the Electoral College is if you're in a state where the race isn't close, then your vote doesn't seem to "matter" as much, and also, you hear much less from the candidates, who tend to focus on "battleground" states. Interestingly, with Edwards from North Carolina, my state has shifted from being an easy win for Bush to a battleground. It would be fun to see a Kerry/Edwards rally here, and it's seeming more and more likely that it will happen.

And it ensures that the DNC and RNC have control of the White House since it would be hard for a third party candidate to ever win the needed electoral votes.

What is surprising is that people defend the system, but would scream bloody murder if Intel and AMD killed any chance of the PowerPC chip.

[themadchemist]

From: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761576768_1____2/Electoral_College.html#s2

That's very interesting...Thanks for pointing it out. Since the parties pick their electors in each state, though, I think it's safe to assume that in most instances, the parties choose electors who they are certain will be faithful. And according to the statistic on encarta, that has been the case over 99.9% of the time.

[Chip NoVaMac]

That's very interesting...Thanks for pointing it out. Since the parties pick their electors in each state, though, I think it's safe to assume that in most instances, the parties choose electors who they are certain will be faithful. And according to the statistic on encarta, that has been the case over 99.9% of the time.

In Virginia, they tend to be Party faithful. The Big money donors of the Party.

[jefhatfield]

That's very interesting...Thanks for pointing it out. Since the parties pick their electors in each state, though, I think it's safe to assume that in most instances, the parties choose electors who they are certain will be faithful. And according to the statistic on encarta, that has been the case over 99.9% of the time.

i heard that once, maybe twice, and elector went the "other way"

what i would like is if, let's say california, voted "x" million votes for kerry/edwards and "x" million votes for bush/cheney that the votes would go in those exact proportions for the presidential election

though i am a democrat and the last three times i voted for prez, that all of california's electoral votes went to the democrats...it just somehow seemed unfair that all those "republican" votes counted for absolutely nothing...the democrats, my party, won the "whole state"?...now there's something wrong with that picture

dole out the votes, no pun intended..he he..., in the proportions they were laid out and let the winner be the one with the most votes

fair is fair

ps...i vote all the time, and i don't blame people who don't vote for president saying that their vote doesn't count...in many cases, it doesn't since the election is held under the stupid electoral college system

they say the united states is a "democracy"...well it is on every voting issue except for president ;)

[Chip NoVaMac]

i heard that once, maybe twice, and elector went the "other way"

what i would like is if, let's say california, voted "x" million votes for kerry/edwards and "x" million votes for bush/cheney that the votes would go in those exact proportions for the presidential election

though i am a democrat and the last three times i voted for prez, that all of california's electoral votes went to the democrats...it just somehow seemed unfair that all those "republican" votes counted for absolutely nothing...the democrats, my party, won the "whole state"?...now there's something wrong with that picture

dole out the votes, no pun intended..he he..., in the proportions they were laid out and let the winner be the one with the most votes

fair is fair

ps...i vote all the time, and i don't blame people who don't vote for president saying that their vote doesn't count...in many cases, it doesn't since the election is held under the stupid electoral college system

they say the united states is a "democracy"...well it is on every voting issue except for president ;)

Might as well get rid of an outdated system then. I for one will pop the cork on that one change. Popular for in a democracy. What a concept.

[jefhatfield]

Might as well get rid of an outdated system then. I for one will pop the cork on that one change. Popular for in a democracy. What a concept.

the democrats have always, except for once, been on the winning end of a contested election where the loser had more popular votes

if fair were fair, the republicans and conservatives throughout history would have had more victories, but it's something i can live with knowing that our system was representative of our populace

to me, it's not about winning first, but representing our nation...and if our nation throughout history has mostly been conservative, and i am out of step with "most" people, popular vote wise, then so be it

i rest at night knowing that the system is fair and for everything besides the white house, it is fair and that's "almost" good enough for me...heck, if we went to a popular vote and a democrat, my party, never won again in my lifetime i wouldn't be that bummed, just as long as we the people, one vote for one person, votes whoever it is to be into the white house

[Frohickey]

The depressing thing about the Electoral College is if you're in a state where the race isn't close, then your vote doesn't seem to "matter" as much, and also, you hear much less from the candidates, who tend to focus on "battleground" states. Interestingly, with Edwards from North Carolina, my state has shifted from being an easy win for Bush to a battleground. It would be fun to see a Kerry/Edwards rally here, and it's seeming more and more likely that it will happen.

I'm counting on it.

Not being in a battleground state, I get to vote my conscience, instead of for the lesser of two weevils. ;)

[Frohickey]

though i am a democrat and the last three times i voted for prez, that all of california's electoral votes went to the democrats...it just somehow seemed unfair that all those "republican" votes counted for absolutely nothing...the democrats, my party, won the "whole state"?...now there's something wrong with that picture


That could be changed if California were to change its election laws and apportion its electoral college votes depending on the percentage of popular votes. I think there are two states in the Union where its not winner-take-all.

I think that the situation is fine, and has worked for hundreds of years. Besides, from a non-battleground state to a battleground state and back to a non-battleground state should take several decades to accomplish. This makes for a stable state of affairs. Of course, if Democrats were to all get mugged simultaneously, you could change from D to R in a heartbeat. :p ;) :D

Now, if only everyone were Libertarians, this place would be sweeeeet!!!

[miloblithe]

That could be changed if California were to change its election laws and apportion its electoral college votes depending on the percentage of popular votes. I think there are two states in the Union where its not winner-take-all.

Maine, I think, has a system where the state is divided into two sections and the winner of each section gets one vote plus the overall winner gets the third vote. It's still winner-take-all, but just split up more. I don't think any state apportions EC votes by percentage of popular vote. It would make it more interesting though.

[Krizoitz]

they say the united states is a "democracy"...well it is on every voting issue except for president ;)

I'm not going to start a debate on the ups and downs of the electoral college but I did want to clear something up.

The United States of America is NOT a Democracy.
The United States of America IS a Democratic Republic.

There is a difference.

[jefhatfield]

Now, if only everyone were Libertarians, this place would be sweeeeet!!!

any other party but the libertarians...sheesh

there will be other parties now and in the future that will get more votes...mainly because they take into account human nature and something called...reality

or maybe the libertarians are true idealists, but then again the ones i see are usually nuts or big-time statists, the opposite of what they preach