And then your vote will never matter at all because it will always be over ruled by the people of bigger states. The electoral college was setup to try and insure that people in less populated states had a say in things too.
And then your vote will never matter at all because it will always be over ruled by the people of bigger states. The electoral college was setup to try and insure that people in less populated states had a say in things too.
No one care's about this stuff anymore.
And yet California, Texas, Florida, and New York pretty much dictate the outcome of most elections. The electoral college still gives more voting clout to the heavily populated states. Flyover country just doesn't matter - electoral college or popular vote.
You say this:
And follow it up with this?!?
You've just been completely discredited. Seriously.
And follow it up with this?!?
You've just been completely discredited. Seriously.
Sorry.... I refuse to participate in a system that is old and archaic, put in place for limitations of the times from 200+ years ago that are no longer appropriate. It gives NO additional weight to states of lower population (like ours) and allows up to 49.9% of people's votes in each state to be ignored. This allows states like New York, which might go 60/40 to instead cast 100% of their electoral college votes for one candidate. It's BS.
When the President is elected by popular vote, I might consider it.
I just ran some numbers myself and realized that someone can potentially be elected to the U.S. Presidency with just under 89 million popular votes - something just over 1/4 of the population. And that's assuming every person votes... which obviously isn't the case.
If you look at eligible voting population based on previous elections and turnout, in 2008 there were 161 million votes cast. Which means, if evenly distributed and a similar turnout, the President could be decided by gathering only about 45 million votes, were they all in the right places (states).
This is why I abstain. You can call it foolish, but then, in this thread people have also called it foolish to remain registered Independent in the state of Oklahoma. When it comes to voting, you have to stand on your principles.
If you look at eligible voting population based on previous elections and turnout, in 2008 there were 161 million votes cast. Which means, if evenly distributed and a similar turnout, the President could be decided by gathering only about 45 million votes, were they all in the right places (states).
This is why I abstain. You can call it foolish, but then, in this thread people have also called it foolish to remain registered Independent in the state of Oklahoma. When it comes to voting, you have to stand on your principles.
there are other offices on that ballot too. file an absentee ballot and you might at least get to pick a judge or vote against a retarded bill (like the "ban shariah law" amendment).
I know that. That is why I only specifically refuse to vote for Presidential elections. If I go to the ballot box, the Presidential vote will be blank.
Do you realize that you just gave the common argument FOR the Electoral College and not against it?
How does popular vote ensure that states of lower population get balanced against the large population center states?
Maybe we should just switch things up to be like the "Race for the Chase" in NASCAR?
Everyone grab a Bud on Sunday afternoon while the cantidates all speed around the TV trying to outperform each other. We'll use XBox controllers to vote.
