Does anyone else feel disenfranchised?

[missypie]

I know we are taught that every vote counts, but with the "winner take all" system in the electoral college, that's really not true. I'm a Democrat in Texas and feel like my vote won't count at all. I bet the Republicans in the solid blue states feel the same way.

 

[KM2004]

Speaking of your dilema, there's this new proposal out (I dont know what it's called) that has the electoral college split up depending on the percentage of votes a candidate gets.

For example, if a state has 10 electoral college votes, and voters voted 60 % for candidate A and 40% candidate B, then candidate A would only get 6 electoral college votes and candidate B would get 4 electoral college votes (insead of candidate A getting all 10 votes).

In my opinion, this strengthens the notion that all votes count. This would make everyone feel as though if they go out and vote, that they can actually help their candidate out in non-swing states.

 

[KM2004]

Here's the story.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041007-014009-7753r.htm

 

[LisaZoe]

Originally posted by missypie
I know we are taught that every vote counts, but with the "winner take all" system in the electoral college, that's really not true. I'm a Democrat in Texas and feel like my vote won't count at all. I bet the Republicans in the solid blue states feel the same way.

Yes. Oregon is a small state, population-wise, with not many electoral votes. Since we are also on the west coast and in a different time zone than the bulk of the voters, it often feels like the presidential election has been "called" long before all of the ballots are even counted here. In fact, that is one reason we know have mail-in elections only. People often weren't even voting in some elections that were "called" early by the media.

As for the idea of splitting electoral votes, that would be OK as long as all states did it. Right now, though, it's something only some states are considering. This could mean that that state's votes are even less of a factor in close races.

 

[piratesmate]

I'd like to see the EC abolished altogether. Didn't the founding fathers create it because they thought too many of us "average Joes" didn't have the sense God gave a gnat? Or was it because of high illiteracy? Well, we all have access to school now & most people can read. (Sad I can't say all!)

In some places they're not even bound to vote for the person the people elected. I don't see what purpose it serves anymore. Even though it would have meant George Bush wouldn't have won last time & I'm a Bush supporter, I think we should get rid of it - not split it.

 

[Snowysmom]

I know the feeling. Living in Massachusetts you know who is going to win every time. The candidates never come to visit and this year it is worse. Of course, Kerry never came to visit even when running for senator LOL!

 

[MUFFYCAT]

I'm in the same boat. I'm a Republican and live in New York. I still think it's a great previledge that we can vote.

 

[chadfromdallas]

I feel the same way missypie. I live in Texas as well(Denton pretty soon to be exact) and I hate this system.

 

[cardaway]

I agree with the split idea.

 

[gallaj0]

If you feel your vote is wasted in a state that always goes one way or the other, feel free to use it on a third party candidate.

The way the elections are run, third party candidates will only get some respect when a significant number of people vote for them, wether or not they recieve any Electoral College votes.

Things like funding for the next election cycle, participation in debates, etc. all are figured on the number of real votes, not EC votes.

And while there may not be any current third party candidates you like this year, by helping to make a third party viable, you can guarantee a better selection next time.

How many times have we heard that we're only picking the lesser of two evils when it comes to presidential elections?

You can change that by using your vote to make a statement to the 2 big parties that feel they don't need to offer you a decent candidate, and shake up the process to give us Americans dome real choices when it comes to the most important choice we have.

The Dems and Repubs have the system locked up, but we can change that by forcing them to respect the system for what it really is; the method to elect the BEST person to run our country, not the lesser of two evils, packaged and presented by their political and corporate handlers.

 

[RadioNate]

Originally posted by missypie
I know we are taught that every vote counts, but with the "winner take all" system in the electoral college, that's really not true. I'm a Democrat in Texas and feel like my vote won't count at all. I bet the Republicans in the solid blue states feel the same way.

I feel the same way too. I'm also in TX.

We don't even have political ads running on TV here, I'm talking for EITHER Bush or Kerry. Forget about any visits either.

It's sad really.

I'm for an electoral split like NE and Maine already have.

 

[Aimeedyan]

In Texas too, feel the same way.

But I will vote, because as my momma says, it's my griping rights. I can't gripe, if I don't get out and vote. So I do.

I hate the electoral college set-up.

 

[caitycaity]

We don't even have political ads running on TV here, I'm talking for EITHER Bush or Kerry. Forget about any visits either.

it's like that here too. i also feel disenfranchised and dislike the EC set up.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by piratesmate
I'd like to see the EC abolished altogether. Didn't the founding fathers create it because they thought too many of us "average Joes" didn't have the sense God gave a gnat? Or was it because of high illiteracy? Well, we all have access to school now & most people can read. (Sad I can't say all!)

None of the above

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

In order to appreciate the reasons for the Electoral College, it is
essential to understand its historical context and the problem that the Founding Fathers were trying to solve. They faced the difficult question of how to elect a president in a nation that:

was composed of thirteen large and small States jealous of their ownrights and powers and suspicious of any central national government

contained only 4,000,000 people spread up and down a thousand miles of Atlantic seaboard barely connected by transportation or communication (so that national campaigns were impractical even if they had been thought desirable)

believed, under the influence of such British political thinkers as Henry St John Bolingbroke, that political parties were mischievous if not downright evil, and

felt that gentlemen should not campaign for public office (The sayingwas "The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the office.").
How, then, to choose a president without political parties, without
national campaigns, and without upsetting the carefully designed balance between the presidency and the Congress on one hand and between the States and the federal government on the other?

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by Aimeedyan
In Texas too, feel the same way.

But I will vote, because as my momma says, it's my griping rights. I can't gripe, if I don't get out and vote. So I do.

I hate the electoral college set-up.

There have been only two times in history were the electoral college did not reflect the popular vote, so for people to say they "hate" it (which is pretty strong word, IMHO) is somewhat irrational in my mind. I mean, hell, what difference would it have made to Mondale? And Clinton possibly may have lost one of his elections (don't know, I've not analyzed the numbers) if we went with the split electoral college vote. I mean, careful what you wish for That said, it's an intriguing idea.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by gallaj0
If you feel your vote is wasted in a state that always goes one way or the other, feel free to use it on a third party candidate.

The way the elections are run, third party candidates will only get some respect when a significant number of people vote for them, wether or not they recieve any Electoral College votes.

Things like funding for the next election cycle, participation in debates, etc. all are figured on the number of real votes, not EC votes.

And while there may not be any current third party candidates you like this year, by helping to make a third party viable, you can guarantee a better selection next time.

How many times have we heard that we're only picking the lesser of two evils when it comes to presidential elections?

You can change that by using your vote to make a statement to the 2 big parties that feel they don't need to offer you a decent candidate, and shake up the process to give us Americans dome real choices when it comes to the most important choice we have.

The Dems and Repubs have the system locked up, but we can change that by forcing them to respect the system for what it really is; the method to elect the BEST person to run our country, not the lesser of two evils, packaged and presented by their political and corporate handlers.

The only way any 3rd party will starting having any relevance on a national level is if they start winning at the local level. Throwing away your vote on a national 3rd party candidate will not solve the problem. Like Tip O'Neill said, "all politics are local"

 

[piratesmate]

Originally posted by dmadman43
None of the above

......

Someone should show that article to my history teachers/professors. That's what we were told, but I never cared enough to research to see if it was correct.

 

[tracy51]

I realize that there are very few instances where the electoral vote has resulted in someone who didn't win the popular vote being elected....but.... it makes you wonder how many people simply didn't vote because they 'knew' that their state was going to go one way.

How many democrats won't vote in Texas because the media has said its going to Bush? How many republicans won't vote in states that the media says will go to Kerry?

Here's something else to consider: SOO many people don't bother to register to vote and so many more who are registred to vote don't bother to get out and actually vote. Maybe if more of the those people did register and actually voted, those states wouldn't go the way they are predicted to go - in other words, a Red state would go Blue in the EC or vice versa.

Again, I have to wonder if these people don't realize that and just give up because they think the state will go opposite how they want to vote and don't bother, don't think their vote will count...... If enough drops of water show up, you can fill up an ocean. Individually they might seem insignificant, but together-watch out.

 

[missypie]

NPR interviewed a guy this morning who has written a book entitled something like "Why the Electoral College is Bad for America" (so you know where he stands.) He said that every single reason the EC was established no longer exisits. He said that basically back then there was no mass media, so the people couldn't get to know the candidates on a timely basis. So the idea is that they would vote for wise electors that they were familiar with. The electors would then recommend several distiguished men, then the House of Rep. would make the final decision.

 

[gallaj0]

Throwing away your vote on a national 3rd party candidate will not solve the problem.

It makes a bigger difference than throwing it away on a candidate that isn't going to win my state anyway.

It's my vote, and I feel it can either have no affect in the election at all, or I can give it to a 3rd party candidate, and even when he (or she) gets laughed at, know that my vote did something. It was an attempt to disrupt the status quo.

The two party system is killing American politics, both parties are living off the die hard party line voters, and lying to the rest of us.

Maybe there would be more third party candidates for local elections if they saw some real numbers of votes in national elections.