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?
Gender: Male Location: Dreaming...Or am I living...
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.
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.)
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...
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.
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.
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.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
BtVS
Last edited by Ushgarak on Dec 30th, 2007 at 04:12 PM
Gender: Male Location: Dreaming...Or am I living...
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.
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.
KMC Community Forums
Dec 30th, 2007 04:43 AM
