Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Does anyone else think that voting in American presidential elections is pointless? If you're a republican living in a blue state your vote counts for nothing and its the same if you're a democrat in a red state, so why bother?

pointless? Yeah, I do.

I mean the concept is that if everyone felt the same as you, then there really would be no point in voting. There is a point to voting and that is being a rationally self-interested, participating member of society and by not voting you have no claim on anything that does happen.
By not voting you are giving it the pointlessness that is causing you to not vote.

There will always be people that don't vote.

Maybe if everyone educated themselves on the candidates, political science in general, AND voted, we wouldn't have as many screw ups elected or at least we would have not as bad of screw ups in office.

To be honest, I didn't vote in 2004 because I didn't like either candidate. (I should have voted Nader..heh heh.)

your suggestion wont happen sadly... too bad though (i say that seriously)

Theres no point in America no...

Of course there is a point in voting, even if both candidates suck you could still vote for the one that sucks least or vote blank if that's possible in the US at least. If enough people do that somebody should realize that there is something seriously ****ed up with the political party's. Not voting just means you agree with whatever the rest decides...

What difference will it make?

Who chooses who is put in power?

The primaries? Ofcourse not, getting power in America is limited to the very rich...thus according to Aristotle it is an oligarchy...the voting is a carrot on a stick,

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
What difference will it make?

Who chooses who is put in power?

The primaries? Ofcourse not, getting power in America is limited to the very rich...thus according to Aristotle it is an oligarchy...the voting is a carrot on a stick,

Of course the primaries decide who gets elected, that Americans always vote for the rich people that do a lot of campaigning is their fault, it's not a flaw in democratic system of the US.

Excuse me?

The American system is designed to exclude the masses from entering politics...thats why people vote! Democracies don't use the ballot, it leaves too many doors open to corruption...

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Excuse me?

The American system is designed to exclude the masses from entering politics...thats why people vote! Democracies don't use the ballot, it leaves too many doors open to corruption...

How so, last Californian election god knows how many people ran for Governor including a porn-star and a clown. If that's not open then I don't know what is. That you would need some kind of political career before you could be elected president seems logical to me. But even if you don't want to you could always start your own political party. Last time I heard that's not illegal or impossible, it's almost impossible to get elected though but again that's the fault of the American people not the system.

The fact is the system is designed to favour the rich- sure you can run for office but what are your actually chances of getting into power? 0! By making it a voting system people with money are almost certain to get the vote because only they can afford the campaigning! It was the exact same in Ancient Rome! You can't blame the people for being abused by the system.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
The fact is the system is designed to favour the rich- sure you can run for office but what are your actually chances of getting into power? 0! By making it a voting system people with money are almost certain to get the vote because only they can afford the campaigning! It was the exact same in Ancient Rome! You can't blame the people for being abused by the system.

Campaigning is needed that is true, it is far easier with money that is also true. That doesn't mean you can't do it without money however. If you're smart about it. Besides if you want to be successful in politics you could also consider starting somewhere lower. Mayor or something like that and then just slowly grow until you become more important. Aiming for president as your first job is quite stupid anyway. Not to mention that most people fit to be in office are highly educated and thus have jobs with some status and money. Meaning they would already get publicity. Somebody who has worked at a gas station his entire life might be smarter then everybody else running for president but he or she still wouldn't be the right person for the job. No leadership experience wouldn't really make him or her a good candidate in the first place.

That money helps you getting your message out is logical, that's just how it works in any kind of normal system because TV stations/Other media can't just run adds of everybody that wants to become the next president. I don't really see this as a flaw in the system. It only becomes a flaw when you need tens of millions of dollars from the get go. Which you don't, you would need sponsors giving you money though but you can get those people when you have little money as well.

Could the State not limit the amount that can be spent on campaigns? Sponsor those with less money who want to be President? Why are all presidents millionaires?

To become Preisdent, Senator, Governer you need millions of pounds...fact. Maybe one person has done it without it, maybe more...but thats an anomoly and therefore not viable in argument.

I'm not talking about voting in general. I'm talking about the popular vote. each state gets one vote. Who that state votes for is determined by which candidate gets the majority of voters in that state vote for. So if one candidate gets 51% of the vote, the entire state goes to that candidate. To make up for population differences, there is the electoral college. A state gets a certain number of electoral votes based on its population. But in most states who the electoral college votes for is based on who gets the majority of votes in that state. so if one candidate gets 51% of the vote, all the electoral votes go to that candidate.

This is what makes it pointless to vote. If you're a democrat is a red state your vote won't count for anything, and if you're a republican in a red state your vote is just yet another vote for the republican candidate.

It also makes it impossible for a third party candidate to ever win an election. Because its inconceivable for a third party candidate to win the majority of votes in a single state.

Well that's not really 'there is no point in voting'. That is 'the way in whichthe Electoral College works in the US means many feel disenfranchised."

Which I have some sympathy for. First Past the Post always leaves some votes having no final value- not necessarily a bad thing- but the Electoral College for Presidency always struck me as a bit weird because it creates such huge inequalities of popular voting strength across the country.

Yea, there are some reasonings behind an electoral college, but they seem to be out-dated and I can't remember any of them.
If we (The US) were to unilaterally disband the EC, I doubt much would change, but as it stands now, some republicans are trying to selectively dismantle it in order to get the upper hand.

The electoral college is supposed to even out the population differences of states. So either the popular vote and the electoral college need to be dropped or all fifty states need to change the electoral college so that it takes in to account the minority votes as well as the majority, so if two thirds of the votes in state go to one candidate, only two thirds of the electoral votes go to the candidate, not all of them, and the candidate who got one third of the vote should get one third of the electoral votes.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Could the State not limit the amount that can be spent on campaigns? Sponsor those with less money who want to be President? Why are all presidents millionaires?

To become Preisdent, Senator, Governer you need millions of pounds...fact. Maybe one person has done it without it, maybe more...but thats an anomoly and therefore not viable in argument.

The state could limit the amount of money that can be spend on a campaign, the state shouldn't sponsor people however. At least not until certain demands are met, a significant number of signatures perhaps or a party with a set number of members. Anything else would just be a waste of money, and if the state would do this you would still have a problem with the money thing. Because it could be hard to get a party with a lot of members or a lot of signatures if you don't have any money.

Also setting the amount of money people can spend on their campaigns (could) hugely limit the campaigns. People couldn't travel around that much and not that much would be done, besides if you look at how much money the more popular candidates get, then you would almost say limiting it has very little use because so many people support their candidates anyway and they would get the money they need.

And let's be honest here the most popular candidates are the one's the people like most otherwise they wouldn't be the most popular. Now of course money plays a part, but that Obama guy from what I understand this is his first term as a senator and he isn't some multi billionaire, he still has enough money to campaign throughout the US. So fonds can be gotten if you're popular or outspoken enough to demand attention. Senators or people in important political positions thus people with experience can likely get the attention they need.



Electoral college should just be destroyed. Just count the total amount of votes for each candidate it's the fairest way to run a democracy.

In theory there is a point; in practice it's harder to see the value of (certain) individual votes- in the FPtP system, anyway.

Originally posted by Fishy
Electoral college should just be destroyed. Just count the total amount of votes for each candidate it's the fairest way to run a democracy.

That's exactly my point.

The current system doesn't make any sense, yet no one's talking about change.

I used to be the "it's your duty as a citizen" type, but I do see the futility of it for most of us.

And being "educated" isn't necessarily enough. I'm smart and (I think) well-informed for elections. But, for example, had I been of voting age back in '00 I would've voted for Bush, then it switched to Gore for a time later in life, and now I'm not sure who I'd vote for if I could've. Green Party? write-in? The two party system is so limited.

But my "informed" opinion has changed drastically, meaning that it's as much the ideas you are exposed to as the actual level of education you have, that determines your vote. It's all very arbitrary.

And now, there's so much in either party I disagree with, or each individual candidate. Could I vote for a Dem, disagreeing with them as much as I do on economic matters? Could I vote Republican, disagreeing with them as much as I do on social issues? Could I vote for an independent candidate, knowing it's essentially a waste of a vote in such a dualistic country?

There's no good answer. And I may just be a very in-formed non-vote on election day. I'll go vote for local stuff and just leave the president slot blank.

I hate the two party system. Third party candidates can't even participate in debates. The system really has to be reformed.

Originally posted by cococryspies
I hate the two party system. Third party candidates can't even participate in debates. The system really has to be reformed.

With a country this large, and with a large amount of centralized power, the push will always be toward 2 parties. It's not quite an inevitability, but it's close.

I'm much more of an advocate for decreasing the power of government, so that elections aren't as important. But they are because we are no longer a capitalist democracy, but have some heavy shadings of socialism with the ludicrous number of government powers and govt-run programs. The amount of power and responsibility our gov't is given means that it will remain a 2-party system barring anything short of a public revolution or hundreds of years of gradual decline in gov't intervention.

Neither is likely.

There needs to be a strong central government. otherwise America would be more like fifty individual states rather than the fifty that make up one country.

Limiting executive power would also make presidential elections less important.

there is a difference between limiting and eliminating. our democracy is based on a system of checks and balances. if not than its a dictatorship. ever hear of that 'gray' thing? ...you know what? nevermind.

I know about checks and balances but if the current administration can **** up the country this much its obviously not working.

so lets throw it all away and create a dictatorship?

How does limiting executive power create a dictatorship? It would take power away from one person, the pres., and give to many, the legislature and supreme court, making the government LESS like a dictatorship.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I'll go vote for local stuff and just leave the president slot blank.

why? What a waste.

Originally posted by Schecter
so lets throw it all away and create a dictatorship?

You read my mind.

Someone brought this up already and I do not want to take credit for it, but it does strike me as odd that no politician is "middle class" once they run for whatever office.

Democracy is a joke in application.

Originally posted by Devil King
why? What a waste.

Did you read the post? I explained why.

The point of voting is to make people feel like they've contributed something, or that their opinion has effected some kind of large scale decision, when in reality it didn't.

Originally posted by Schecter
so lets throw it all away and create a dictatorship?

Yes...the same people will hold power...why bother with democracy all it does is create a greater need for politicians to keep the general population happy- when really they lazy idiots who are totally entrapped by the media and spin...lets get rid of the dressings.

Originally posted by cococryspies
How does limiting executive power create a dictatorship? It would take power away from one person, the pres., and give to many, the legislature and supreme court, making the government LESS like a dictatorship.

Putting all your power into one person does make a country a dictatorship as long as that person has to be elected or re-elected on a regular basis.

It might not be the best way to run a country if you purely want to look at what the people want. It might however create the strongest government and give the government actual power to change things. Governments that are elected by the people and then constantly get challenged have a hard time doing anything making the country pretty dull. If nothing changes then politicians have no effect.

If anything the people have to much to say, not to little.

Originally posted by Fishy
Putting all your power into one person does make a country a dictatorship as long as that person has to be elected or re-elected on a regular basis.

It might not be the best way to run a country if you purely want to look at what the people want. It might however create the strongest government and give the government actual power to change things. Governments that are elected by the people and then constantly get challenged have a hard time doing anything making the country pretty dull. If nothing changes then politicians have no effect.

If anything the people have to much to say, not to little.

Why bother with a government...we could go back to Athenian democracy....

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Why bother with a government...we could go back to Athenian democracy....

Well a government is good. You need somebody to rule the country and keep the best interest of the people in mind. A different kind of government like the one you suggested wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

Originally posted by Fishy
Well a government is good. You need somebody to rule the country and keep the best interest of the people in mind. A different kind of government like the one you suggested wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

I should say that an Athenian democracy is a government, the only true form of democracy where power is in the hands of the poor.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I should say that an Athenian democracy is a government, the only true form of democracy where power is in the hands of the poor.

That's not entirely true. The power just lay with a lot of people. Still Athenian democracy's have a lot of downsides as well. Mostly that people are to stupid and to busy to vote on every single topic that comes up in a discussion and a democracy like that can not possibly be expected to run a large country.

And why do you want the power to be in the hands of the poor? If the poor control everything that is as much a failure to democracy as when the rich do it. Perhaps even more because the rich can buy themselves power which is logical in a capitalist market, which we should all agree on is the best market system for a democracy. Poor people can not and in giving them all the power you take away the power from other people. If you give neither all the power and let the people decide on who should have the power, or in the case of an Athenian democracy let all people have the power then you would have a real democracy.

Although you would likely face numerous problems like the one's we have now or thousands of others especially in larger country's.

Originally posted by Fishy
That's not entirely true. The power just lay with a lot of people.
It lay with all the citizens.

Originally posted by Fishy
Still Athenian democracy's have a lot of downsides as well. Mostly that people are to stupid and to busy to vote on every single topic that comes up in a discussion and a democracy like that can not possibly be expected to run a large country.

Thats clearly not true, the people voted and it was very successful...Consider ancient Athens...lack of transport and communication- things we have in abundance in todays world...if the city of Athens and its Empire could be run through that Democracy then there is no reason why the UK or USA couldn't also...to many people nonsense, half the population finds themselves able to vote on the Pop Idol shows...also you call the people stupid...this is a false argument.

Its common when attacking this system to say that the people are too stupid or are not interested in politics...how can you expect people to care about politics when they don't think they have any input! If they did have a chance of puplic office (a real chance) i.e. filling offices by lot then you would find people WOULD become interested in politics...its basic if you want someone to become interested in something...then get them involved!

Originally posted by Fishy
And why do you want the power to be in the hands of the poor? If the poor control everything that is as much a failure to democracy as when the rich do it. Perhaps even more because the rich can buy themselves power which is logical in a capitalist market, which we should all agree on is the best market system for a democracy. Poor people can not and in giving them all the power you take away the power from other people. If you give neither all the power and let the people decide on who should have the power, or in the case of an Athenian democracy let all people have the power then you would have a real democracy.

Although you would likely face numerous problems like the one's we have now or thousands of others especially in larger country's.

An interesting point, but a poor argument I feel. The ONLY democracy is one where power lies with the poor because the poor are nearly always in the majority...thats the definition we get from Aristotle. America is an Oligarchy the country is ruled by the rich few- there is no debate sure the people can vote, but they don't have any power! How many American's wanted the war in Iraq? How many actually support the current President?

Its not about giving all the power to the poor and not letting the rich have any. The rich individual would ofcourse have as much say as an individual poor person...but in terms of power it wouldn't lie with the rich few but rather the poor many.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
It lay with all the citizens.

Well male's who completed their military services.



Although this might be true, it still leaves somethings to doubt. In the Netherlands we have a senate and a congress of representatives. The Congress is filled with lawyers and such looking only at the law and how new laws would affect old laws. Although part of political organisations they are not very political.

The Congress chamber is filled with people who work sometimes 60 or 70 hours a week trying to create bills checking things that happened, asking questions at the rulers and the ministers and what not and trying to find solutions. Reading about proposals of other party's and debating them. I don't know about you, but I can't spare 60 hours a week, along with a 40 hour work week. I have better things to do with my time. That's why I elect somebody to rule in my stead.

If the people would vote directly there would still be a need for an equal amount of time per person if not more, to read everything relating to each bill and each proposal made. That's just impossible. Representatives to the people are the best solution because they do have the time to read the ins and outs, and they do have the education to understand the lawyer mumbo jumbo that the law often exists of.

And you would always have that kind of crap when there is a large group of people running the country with different ideals and backgrounds.



Misunderstood. I thought you wanted the poor to rule instead of the rich where the rich would have fewer power. Now that the poor are the majority (or rather the middle class who aren't really poor) rule the country is logical and I agree that, that should happen.

And how many people support the president? During the last election more then 50% of the people who voted said that Bush could run the country for another 4 years. Meaning he can do what he wants in office because the people elected him. And every 4 years the people in the US get a chance to say they disagreed with a government and they can elect another one. That they don't is their own fault. That Bush made decisions later on that would in hind sight make them vote for other party's is of course the fault of President Bush. At least if he didn't make it clear that he would do that, which he on some issues probably didn't.

With the war in Iraq I think he was always pretty clear. So that's the fault of the American people. But hey they will get their chance to elect somebody who wants to stop the war soon enough.



Which is sort of the case right now. The only thing is that people in the government have a good salary, making them rich. But over here at least there are a lot of "used to be" poor people in the government

I've had it with bureaucracies. I want a KING OR QUEEN, DAM IT to HELL.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
I've had it with bureaucracies. I want a KING OR QUEEN, DAM IT to HELL.

Kings or Queens still face the same problems. Bureaucracy need to exist otherwise corruption would become huge. Checks and balances keep a country stable. And they might face far more civil unrest and possible rebellions.

I heard the Netherlands is sorta cool. Is it?

Originally posted by Deja~vu
I heard the Netherlands is sorta cool. Is it?

Well we do have a monarchy. We do have poor people in the government we do have rich people in the government and we do have an incredibly stupid government. Still if you want to vote for the most idiotic party's out there or if you want to just smoke weed and go to prostitutes legally, yeah it's cool.

If you don't need those last two things then you could just as well live anywhere else I guess.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Could I vote for an independent candidate, knowing it's essentially a waste of a vote in such a dualistic country?

That's an awesome reason.

Especially since not voting is actually a waste of a vote.

I'm also not very clear on this notion of the "poor" having all the power, and the "rich" having none.

Also, I think oppression of a majority is still oppression.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Also, I think oppression of a majority is still oppression.

Well oppression of a majority wouldn't happen. If everybody has equal power, meaning no difference between rich and poor in their votes. Which is already the case anyway. That all politicians happen to be rich is just a logical thing considering the fact that you would likely need either an education or some fame. Both get you money. Not to mention that being a politician probably doesn't pay bad either.

Originally posted by Fishy
Well oppression of a majority wouldn't happen. If everybody has equal power, meaning no difference between rich and poor in their votes. Which is already the case anyway. That all politicians happen to be rich is just a logical thing considering the fact that you would likely need either an education or some fame. Both get you money. Not to mention that being a politician probably doesn't pay bad either. Oppression by the majority was what I meant. My bad.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oppression by the majority was what I meant. My bad.

Well that is what a democracy is isn't it? 50%+1 decide.

If you really don't want that then you should a multi-party democracy. It creates concessions in the government and changes things. It also makes the ruling party's weaker because they are forced to break election promises to be able to rule. But still it is the fairest way to rule a country.

A two party democracy has less problems with that, or any other kind of democracy where one party can (likely) get more then 50% of the votes.

Still even then politicians do keep everybody in mind just because pissing off 50%-1 of the country is not a smart thing to do.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's an awesome reason.

Especially since not voting is actually a waste of a vote.

I'm guessing this is sarcasm, which is fine. I realize many people are adamantly opposed to people waiving their right to vote. But the fact that I am giving it thought is at least better off than the apathy that normally dominates non-voters.

I literally can't vote for any of the candidates in good conscience, at least with my current understanding of their platforms and ideals. So if one presents him/herself before election day, I'll happily vote for them. But in the meantime, I'll likely vote for local issues and candidates, so that I'm remaining active, and just not vote for president.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I'm guessing this is sarcasm, which is fine. I realize many people are adamantly opposed to people waiving their right to vote. But the fact that I am giving it thought is at least better off than the apathy that normally dominates non-voters.

I literally can't vote for any of the candidates in good conscience, at least with my current understanding of their platforms and ideals. So if one presents him/herself before election day, I'll happily vote for them. But in the meantime, I'll likely vote for local issues and candidates, so that I'm remaining active, and just not vote for president. I'm okay with waiving your vote, if the reasons are....reasonable.

I think not to vote and thereby wasting your vote because voting would be almost like wasting your vote isn't particularly good though.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I'm guessing this is sarcasm, which is fine. I realize many people are adamantly opposed to people waiving their right to vote. But the fact that I am giving it thought is at least better off than the apathy that normally dominates non-voters.

I literally can't vote for any of the candidates in good conscience, at least with my current understanding of their platforms and ideals. So if one presents him/herself before election day, I'll happily vote for them. But in the meantime, I'll likely vote for local issues and candidates, so that I'm remaining active, and just not vote for president.

Then vote for the lesser of two evils, or if you considering voting green but think it will be a waste vote for them anyway. If they get enough votes they might actually start making an impact one day.

Originally posted by Fishy
Then vote for the lesser of two evils, or if you considering voting green but think it will be a waste vote for them anyway. If they get enough votes they might actually start making an impact one day.

We currently have such opposing ideologies in the 2-party system that it has become impossible for a 3rd party to get the percentage required to receive government funding. I considered Nader the last election, but decided against it for that very reason. And until we become less antagonistic toward whichever side we aren't on (as a country, not individually) it won't become a reality.

And choosing between lesser evils is generally the case with politics, but like most who didn't bother to read my earlier justification you're just assuming I've become apathetic without legitimate large-scale gripes with both sides, which I most certainly have.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Maybe if everyone educated themselves on the candidates, political science in general, AND voted, we wouldn't have as many screw ups elected or at least we would have not as bad of screw ups in office.
Who are you talking about? Apparently not yourself. I've seen the way you think.

If that's educated I'd hate to see uneducated..


Democracy is a bullshit game anyway. Our forefathers supported liberty. Not democracy.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
We currently have such opposing ideologies in the 2-party system that it has become impossible for a 3rd party to get the percentage required to receive government funding. I considered Nader the last election, but decided against it for that very reason. And until we become less antagonistic toward whichever side we aren't on (as a country, not individually) it won't become a reality.

And choosing between lesser evils is generally the case with politics, but like most who didn't bother to read my earlier justification you're just assuming I've become apathetic without legitimate large-scale gripes with both sides, which I most certainly have.

So you want to vote Nader but you aren't because it would a waste of a vote, and you won't start voting for him until other people do so it won't be a waste anymore? What if everybody feels like that. Vote for him anyway. Even if it's a waste, perhaps the next election even more people will be willing to waste their votes.

And you might have very large issues with both party's, still there has to be something in one party that makes it worse then the other. Then vote for the other. If there really isn't, if you really can't think of anything then just vote for Nader.. It's better then not voting.

Different representative, same policies. Yeah, kinda pointless.

But it makes you cosey knowing you're voting and are part of 'democracy' and free world, while everyone else is oppressed and sad.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Different representative, same policies. Yeah, kinda pointless.

But it makes you cosey knowing you're voting and are part of 'democracy' and free world, while everyone else is oppressed and sad.

Then vote blank. Voting is a way to make your voice heard, vote for independent people minor party's blank if you can't do anything else. If enough people stop voting for the mayor two party's people will start to realize something is wrong.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Different representative, same policies. Yeah, kinda pointless.

But it makes you cosey knowing you're voting and are part of 'democracy' and free world, while everyone else is oppressed and sad.

does this mean you don't vote?

I wish someone would come out with a "None of the Above" option on a ballot.

Kinda like Brewsters Millions.




Very sad Richard and John are dead.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I wish someone would come out with a "None of the Above" option on a ballot.

Kinda like Brewsters Millions.




Very sad Richard and John are dead.

Can't you vote blank?

Sure, but I still like "none of the above" more.

Brewster's Millions rocked the sh*t.

woot

Originally posted by Fishy
So you want to vote Nader but you aren't because it would a waste of a vote, and you won't start voting for him until other people do so it won't be a waste anymore? What if everybody feels like that. Vote for him anyway. Even if it's a waste, perhaps the next election even more people will be willing to waste their votes.

And you might have very large issues with both party's, still there has to be something in one party that makes it worse then the other. Then vote for the other. If there really isn't, if you really can't think of anything then just vote for Nader.. It's better then not voting.

I never said I liked Nader's position on everything, just that I considered it because of my disgust with the central parties. That's the central point. There's too much about any party that I disagree with for me to vote for them. It's not choosing a lesser of 2-3 evils. It's more like picking my poison.

But apparently for certain people I'm not an American if I don't vote for President, even if I'm voting for every other position and issue. So I suppose you'll either be upset or say "well vote for {insert candidate} instead." Either reaction is fine...I'm sufficiently calloused to criticism that it doesn't really affect me.

And if I did get momentum some big company will get me bumped off, in order to save their wealth