Home› A Moving Train

No wonder so many Americans don't vote!!

ACCBootlegGoddessACCBootlegGoddess Posts: 4,250
edited September 2008 in A Moving Train
I've been reading up on the American election process a little bit...and it seems like the PEOPLE don't really elect the president....The electoral college does. I remember that George W got his first presidency cause of them (and Jeb Bush an that other woman he was banging at the time...forget her name).

My point is...if our system here in Canada were like that, I wouldn't be that inclined to vote either...I mean if these electors can vote any way that want (even if they tend to go by the popular vote) then WHY have a national election in the first place?? Seems like a waste of time to me.

You guys need to get rid of this electoral college shit and have the winner of the popular vote declared the winner of the election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College for anyone out there who wants some information on the electoral college.
"Rock and roll is something that can't be quantified, sometimes it's not even something you hear, but FEEL!" - Bob Lefsetz
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • South of SeattleSouth of Seattle West Seattle Posts: 10,724
    Hey Mel. The Electoral college is a major problem IMO. I think in this election in particular. If McCain wins or loses, I guarantee he'll have lost the popular vote by a wide margin.

    But by having the electoral college, it insures that the candidates visit all parts of the country though.
    NERDS!
  • g under pg under p Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,200
    Don't understand it either but don't you know we find ways to do things here ass backward.

    Peace
    *We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti

    *MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
    .....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti

    *The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)


  • jimed14jimed14 Posts: 9,488
    South of Seattle wrote:
    But by having the electoral college, it insures that the candidates visit all parts of the country though.


    well, I'll disagree with this ... they only concentrate on 10 or so "battle ground" states (states that are close between the two candidates) ...

    If you live in a state that is clearly going to vote for one of the candidates (like me here in California, which will vote for Obama) ... well, we will never see any of the candidates here, unless, they are raising money.
    "You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91

    "I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
  • South of SeattleSouth of Seattle West Seattle Posts: 10,724
    jimed14 wrote:
    well, I'll disagree with this ... they only concentrate on 10 or so "battle ground" states (states that are close between the two candidates) ...

    If you live in a state that is clearly going to vote for one of the candidates (like me here in California, which will vote for Obama) ... well, we will never see any of the candidates here, unless, they are raising money.

    Very True, but if the electoral college was disbanded, wouldn't they only be in the major markets? SF, LA, NYC, BOS, CHI, ATL, HOU?

    They'd have no incentive to go to the battleground state of someplace like Ohio.
    NERDS!
  • LikeAnOceanLikeAnOcean Posts: 7,718
    The idea behind the electoral college simplified..

    Pretend 51% of Americans move to California..

    There is a major disaster there that cause people to vote irrationally..

    they choose a moron president who promises them what they want, but completely fucks over the country. The other 49% are thinking rationally, but can't compete with the 51% freaked out Californians and in the end this moron president ends up fucking everyone because everyone in California freaked out..

    The electoral college creates balance..

    If that makes sense.

    I used to be against it as well, but it makes sense to me now. It basically adds balance to address issues that effect different regions evenly.
  • PJ_SalukiPJ_Saluki Posts: 1,006
    LikeAnOcean wrote:
    The idea behind the electoral college simplified..

    Pretend 51% of Americans move to California..

    There is a major disaster there that cause people to vote irrationally..

    they choose a moron president who promises them what they want, but completely fucks over the country. The other 49% are thinking rationally, but can't compete with the 51% freaked out Californians and in the end this moron president ends up fucking everyone because everyone in California freaked out..

    The electoral college creates balance..

    If that makes sense.

    I used to be against it as well, but it makes sense to me now. It basically adds balance to address issues that effect different regions evenly.

    We've already got the moron president and have had a major disaster in New Orleans (as well as a self-created one in Iraq). Looks like all we need is for more than half the population to move to Cali.
    "Almost all those politicians took money from Enron, and there they are holding hearings. That's like O.J. Simpson getting in the Rae Carruth jury pool." -- Charles Barkley
  • FlaggFlagg Posts: 5,856
    jimed14 wrote:
    well, I'll disagree with this ... they only concentrate on 10 or so "battle ground" states (states that are close between the two candidates) ...

    If you live in a state that is clearly going to vote for one of the candidates (like me here in California, which will vote for Obama) ... well, we will never see any of the candidates here, unless, they are raising money.


    Same here in Texas. It is going for McCain no question so neither candidate will campaign here.
    DAL-7/5/98,10/17/00,6/9/03,11/15/13
    BOS-9/28/04,9/29/04,6/28/08,6/30/08, 9/5/16, 9/7/16, 9/2/18
    MTL-9/15/05, OTT-9/16/05
    PHL-5/27/06,5/28/06,10/30/09,10/31/09
    CHI-8/2/07,8/5/07,8/23/09,8/24/09
    HTFD-6/27/08
    ATX-10/4/09, 10/12/14
    KC-5/3/2010,STL-5/4/2010
    Bridge School-10/23/2010,10/24/2010
    PJ20-9/3/2011,9/4/2011
    OKC-11/16/13
    SEA-12/6/13
    TUL-10/8/14
  • Gonzo1977Gonzo1977 Posts: 1,696
    ACCBootlegGoddess wrote:
    I've been reading up on the American election process a little bit...and it seems like the PEOPLE don't really elect the president....The electoral college does. I remember that George W got his first presidency cause of them (and Jeb Bush an that other woman he was banging at the time...forget her name).

    My point is...if our system here in Canada were like that, I wouldn't be that inclined to vote either...I mean if these electors can vote any way that want (even if they tend to go by the popular vote) then WHY have a national election in the first place?? Seems like a waste of time to me.

    You guys need to get rid of this electoral college shit and have the winner of the popular vote declared the winner of the election.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College for anyone out there who wants some information on the electoral college.


    Problem is in Canada...We don't vote for our Prime Minister either.

    We vote for party members to vote for us.

    Not much better
  • ACCBootlegGoddessACCBootlegGoddess Posts: 4,250
    South of Seattle wrote:
    Hey Mel. The Electoral college is a major problem IMO. I think in this election in particular. If McCain wins or loses, I guarantee he'll have lost the popular vote by a wide margin.

    But by having the electoral college, it insures that the candidates visit all parts of the country though.


    Hey Ricky,

    I should have posted this thread on a day where I could have been here to reply lol. Anyways what good is going to more states...or ANY states for that matter going to do if at the end of the day it doesn't MATTER how the citizens of said state vote?? I think we can all agree...McCain is prob gonna lose the popular vote...but yet he can STILL be your next president...THAT is my biggest problem with your system and is why there are so many people out there who don't vote despite following the election and knowing about the issues.
    "Rock and roll is something that can't be quantified, sometimes it's not even something you hear, but FEEL!" - Bob Lefsetz
  • ACCBootlegGoddessACCBootlegGoddess Posts: 4,250
    Gonzo1977 wrote:
    Problem is in Canada...We don't vote for our Prime Minister either.

    We vote for party members to vote for us.

    Not much better


    Hi Gonzo...deepest armpits of Canada huh?? Hamilton perhaps??? lol sorry.

    Anyways I'm not saying our system is perfect BUT at least whichever party gets in...is WHO the majority of Canadians WANT in power.
    I agree that all our MP's are puppets of the party they represent and that our system doesn't ALLOW them to vote according to their conscience (ergo they really can't properly represent the interest of the voters in their ridings)....but there is less of a reason to NOT vote here then there is in the US. We CAN get a shitty Prime Minister/Party out if enough of us want too...not so in the US :(

    The only thing that REALLY infuriated me was after the last Federal Election when that douchebag from one of the Toronto Ridings (forget his name) who ran AND WON as a Liberal...crossed the floor and joined the conservatives as a CABINET MINISTER no less...a WEEK after the election. That smells of deception to me....that the Conservatives KNEW that riding would never vote in someone running a a Conservative so they ran someone as a pawn...and had this asshat get the Liberal nom with the promise that if he won they'd give him a cabinet position or something. THAT I hate because the people of that riding WANTED and ELECTED a Liberal...NOT a PC!

    Sorry this kinda turned into a rant....rant over :)

    That said...I still believe in getting your voice heard, no matter how fruitless the effort might prove to be in the short term. If you don't participate you really don't have a right to say shit later. IMO
    "Rock and roll is something that can't be quantified, sometimes it's not even something you hear, but FEEL!" - Bob Lefsetz
  • __ Posts: 6,651
    South of Seattle wrote:
    Very True, but if the electoral college was disbanded, wouldn't they only be in the major markets? SF, LA, NYC, BOS, CHI, ATL, HOU?

    They'd have no incentive to go to the battleground state of someplace like Ohio.

    Do they really NEED to go everywhere in this day and age of technology?
  • blondieblue227blondieblue227 Va, USA Posts: 4,509
    LikeAnOcean wrote:
    The idea behind the electoral college simplified..

    Pretend 51% of Americans move to California..

    There is a major disaster there that cause people to vote irrationally..

    they choose a moron president who promises them what they want, but completely fucks over the country. The other 49% are thinking rationally, but can't compete with the 51% freaked out Californians and in the end this moron president ends up fucking everyone because everyone in California freaked out..

    The electoral college creates balance..

    If that makes sense.

    I used to be against it as well, but it makes sense to me now. It basically adds balance to address issues that effect different regions evenly.


    Thanks for your post. I didn’t do well in government class in high school and was too embarrassed to ask about it here.

    And also, aren’t the majority of votes supposed to be represented in electoral vote? Your representative is supposed to vote with his citizens?

    Why do people use the electoral vote as a reason not to vote?
    if it's truly unfair, why don't they get rid of electorial voting?
    *~Pearl Jam will be blasted from speakers until morale improves~*

  • dignindignin Posts: 9,338
    ACCBootlegGoddess wrote:
    Anyways I'm not saying our system is perfect BUT at least whichever party gets in...is WHO the majority of Canadians WANT in power.
    not really true, if the Conservatives get around 40% of the popular vote...they will most likely have a majority in parliament ....thats not who the majority of Canadians voted for though.
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    The main reason most Americans do not vote is not because of the Electoral College, in fact, most Americans have zero idea what that even is. Most Americans do not vote because they are un-interested, do not feel they can make a difference, and overall have a general feeling that such things don't impact them directly. You can also make the argument that the political system (over the course of history) has disregarded the disenfranchised (minorities, women, etc) so much that people don't care to buy into it, and in all honesty there's no real tell tale sign that it's changed that much to incorporate them no matter what the results are. Lastly, people are very gullible and believe anything they see or read in the media and would rather not be involved and just leave everything up to those in charge to lead the way, no matter what the results are.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • SVRDhand13SVRDhand13 Posts: 26,444
    FiveB247x wrote:
    The main reason most Americans do not vote is not because of the Electoral College, in fact, most Americans have zero idea what that even is. Most Americans do not vote because they are un-interested, do not feel they can make a difference, and overall have a general feeling that such things don't impact them directly. You can also make the argument that the political system (over the course of history) has disregarded the disenfranchised (minorities, women, etc) so much that people don't care to buy into it, and in all honesty there's no real tell tale sign that it's changed that much to incorporate them no matter what the results are. Lastly, people are very gullible and believe anything they see or read in the media and would rather not be involved and just leave everything up to those in charge to lead the way, no matter what the results are.
    So basically what you're saying is that most Americans are stupid. And if you're not saying it... I am :).
    severed hand thirteen
    2006: Gorge 7/23 2008: Hartford 6/27 Beacon 7/1 2009: Spectrum 10/30-31
    2010: Newark 5/18 MSG 5/20-21 2011: PJ20 9/3-4 2012: Made In America 9/2
    2013: Brooklyn 10/18-19 Philly 10/21-22 Hartford 10/25 2014: ACL10/12
    2015: NYC 9/23 2016: Tampa 4/11 Philly 4/28-29 MSG 5/1-2 Fenway 8/5+8/7
    2017: RRHoF 4/7   2018: Fenway 9/2+9/4   2021: Sea Hear Now 9/18 
    2022: MSG 9/11  2024: MSG 9/3-4 Philly 9/7+9/9 Fenway 9/15+9/17
    2025: Pittsburgh 5/16+5/18
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    I would say generically, as a whole, that is one of the several factors we have the political climate that we do.... but not the sole reason.
    SVRDhand13 wrote:
    So basically what you're saying is that most Americans are stupid. And if you're not saying it... I am :).
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • ACCBootlegGoddessACCBootlegGoddess Posts: 4,250
    yield6 wrote:
    not really true, if the Conservatives get around 40% of the popular vote...they will most likely have a majority in parliament ....thats not who the majority of Canadians voted for though.

    If this happens it will be because the other 60% of the vote will be split between the Liberals, NDP, Greens and the Bloq. I can't see any of them having more than 40% of the popular vote on their own.
    "Rock and roll is something that can't be quantified, sometimes it's not even something you hear, but FEEL!" - Bob Lefsetz
  • blondieblue227blondieblue227 Va, USA Posts: 4,509
    :)

    One person can make a difference…….

    http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y175/blondieblue227/myspace/starfishB.jpg
    *~Pearl Jam will be blasted from speakers until morale improves~*

  • bootlegger10bootlegger10 Posts: 16,062
    ACCBootlegGoddess wrote:
    I remember that George W got his first presidency cause of them (and Jeb Bush an that other woman he was banging at the time...forget her name).

    My point is...if our system here in Canada were like that, I wouldn't be that inclined to vote either...I mean if these electors can vote any way that want (even if they tend to go by the popular vote) then WHY have a national election in the first place??

    1. So we've gone tabloid on this board? Prove that he was banging her.

    2. The electoral college does not TEND to go by the popular vote. It goes by the popular vote.

    Edit: I meant the electoral college votes in each state based off the popular vote of that state. It does not 'tend' to vote by the popular vote.
  • blondieblue227blondieblue227 Va, USA Posts: 4,509
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    2. The electoral college does not TEND to go by the popular vote. It goes by the popular vote.

    That’s what I thought.

    Do people really not understand this, or is it a moronic excuse they use not to vote?


    .
    *~Pearl Jam will be blasted from speakers until morale improves~*

  • dignindignin Posts: 9,338
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    It goes by the popular vote.
    if thats true how come Gore didnt win the election then, correct me if im wrong here but didnt he have more of the popular vote?
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSunLikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    yield6 wrote:
    if thats true how come Gore didnt win the election then, correct me if im wrong here but didnt he have more of the popular vote?
    its happened about 4 times if i'm not mistaken. i dont know what the hell bootlegger is talking about.
  • dignindignin Posts: 9,338
    MrSmith wrote:
    its happened about 4 times if i'm not mistaken. i dont know what the hell bootlegger is talking about.
    thanks, thats what i thought.
  • ACCBootlegGoddessACCBootlegGoddess Posts: 4,250
    MrSmith wrote:
    its happened about 4 times if i'm not mistaken. i dont know what the hell bootlegger is talking about.


    Ohh didn't know about the other 3 occasions. Were they all in favour of the republicans or did the Dems benefit on one of those occasions?
    "Rock and roll is something that can't be quantified, sometimes it's not even something you hear, but FEEL!" - Bob Lefsetz
  • blondieblue227blondieblue227 Va, USA Posts: 4,509
    Gimme Some Truth :)

    I told you I didn’t do well in government class. lol
    *~Pearl Jam will be blasted from speakers until morale improves~*

  • normnorm Posts: 31,146
    MrSmith wrote:
    its happened about 4 times if i'm not mistaken.

    1824: John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson, (actually neither candidate won a majority of the Electoral College. Adams was awarded the presidency when the election went to the House of Representatives.)



    1876: Rutherford B. Hayes defeats Samuel J. Tilden


    1888: Grover Cleveland over Benjamin Harrison


    2000: George W. Bush defeats AL gore
    MrSmith wrote:
    i dont know what the hell bootlegger is talking about.

    out his ass apparently :rolleyes:
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSunLikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    ACCBootlegGoddess wrote:
    Ohh didn't know about the other 3 occasions. Were they all in favour of the republicans or did the Dems benefit on one of those occasions?
    i think it was three times total. the other two happened in the 1800s. both went republican, but the parties were a lot different then and could have gone the other way just as easily.

    (edit: oh i have been corrected it was 4 times)


    and anyway there is nothing remotely democratic about it. California only has about one electoral vote for every 660,000 residents, while Wyoming has an electoral vote for about every 170,000. so the vote from a citizen in Wyoming counts more. its outdated and stupid.
  • blondieblue227blondieblue227 Va, USA Posts: 4,509
    'Numerous constitutional amendments have been submitted seeking a replacement of the Electoral College with a direct popular vote. However, no submission has ever successfully passed both Houses of Congress.'
    *~Pearl Jam will be blasted from speakers until morale improves~*

  • bootlegger10bootlegger10 Posts: 16,062
    yield6 wrote:
    if thats true how come Gore didnt win the election then, correct me if im wrong here but didnt he have more of the popular vote?

    No, Bush had more popular votes in Florida. That is why the Florida electoral college went for Bush.
  • bootlegger10bootlegger10 Posts: 16,062
    MrSmith wrote:
    its happened about 4 times if i'm not mistaken. i dont know what the hell bootlegger is talking about.

    Yes, you have to go back to 1888 to find time where the electoral college didn't pick the president. 120 years ago. 29 elections ago. 2000 was picked by the electoral college as it was decided that Bush had more Florida votes. Bitch about the Supreme Court, not the electoral college there.

    There is probably a 1% chance this year that the electoral college would not vote by the popular vote of each state.

    I guess I am clueless since I go by the reality of the last 120 years and the reality of today. When I posted I wasn't sure what happened in the 1800's, and figured there was probably was a time when the electoral college was jacked up. But you know what, it wasn't in my lifetime, and I'm going by today. You know, the here and now. But yeah, go back to 1888.
Sign In or Register to comment.