Your Vote Dose Not Matter!

NightFlirt
Your Vote Dose Not Matter!

It is the Electoral College Vote that determines the presidency, not what voters want! If you convinced every voter in any one state of your choice not to vote for either candidate, the Electoral College Vote would still go to one of the candidates. Our founding fathers figured that the common people were too stupid to choose who should lead the country and thus gave all the real power to a small group of trusted friends and family to decide. These people made up the first Electoral College, and the practice has continued throughout the centuries. Popular vote has no bearing on the Electoral College Vote. Go look at past elections where popular vote was disregarded.

Your Vote Dose Not Matter!
13
4
Add Opinion

Most Helpful Guys

  • NaultD
    There is a National Popular Vote interstate compact that could change that. So a few states make a law saying "all of our electoral college votes are going to the national popular vote". So every vote would impact those states. Now let's say more states agree that equal more then 270 threshold to win, ding ding the person with the most votes wins.
    Is this still revelant?
  • Bandit74
    From an individual perspective I agree. My one vote is unlikely to ever sway anything especially if I live in an area where most of the other voters hold different views.
    So the result of an election will be the same regardless of whether or not I cast a vote.
    Is this still revelant?

Most Helpful Girl

  • leahzrc
    I'm a Green so I'm fucked basically
    Is this still revelant?

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

311
  • nightdrot
    If I might, I am going to cheat here a bit and offer my responses to questions that have previously appeared on this site but that are relevant to your argument here. My answers appear under my "Nightdrot" nom de guerre:

    1) What is the debate on the Electoral College REALLY all about? ↗

    2) Americans: Why don't you vote for parties except Democrat and Republican? ↗

    Suffice to say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The notion that your vote in a nation of 300 million people is going to count anyhow is problematic at best.

    The point in voting, as Edmund Burke put it, “Man is a most unwise, and a most wise, being. The individual is foolish. The multitude, for the moment, is foolish, when they act without deliberation; but the species is wise, and when time is given to it, as a species it almost always acts right...”

    To which he added, “The case for universal suffrage and political equality does not rest on any superstition that all men, by acquiring the vote, will become equally wise or equally intelligent. It rests, both historically and philosophically, on the belief that if any section of the community is deprived of the ability to vote, then its interests are liable to be neglected and a nexus of grievances is likely to be created which will fester in the body politic.”

    The point of any well ordered constitutional system is not to satisfy the individual ego nor necessarily to give expression to it at any given point in time. It is rather to nurture virtue and guard against the passions of the moment. To - OVER TIME - broadly form a consensus that conduces to social stability and the maintenance of ordered liberty.

    The Electoral College has been tested over time and it has broadly accomplished that. The notion that your "private stock of reason" should be given precedence over what has been tested over time is truly the most supreme arrogance and is characteristic of a populist age.

    It is particularly poignant in an age when, according to one survey, 70% of "the people" cannot name their Member of Congress and cannot get right within a decade the date when the Second World War began. Suffice to say, Madison knew whereof he spoke when he said that one of the purposes of government was to "refine and enlarge the public views and give direction to the willfulness of the people."

    In any case, assuming - as I do not - that it is a mortal sin where the popular vote failed to carry the day, it has happened a grand total of 5 times in 200 years. Not a bad track record, and no doubt you were deeply disappointed that Andrew Jackson failed to defeat John Quincy Adams.

    Particularly given that when the popular choice - Jackson - finally did pull it off the "Trail of Tears" and all the rest followed. It sometimes being a thin line between representative government - which is what the U. S. system is - and mob rule - which is what the populists often mistake it for.

    Long story short, it depends what you mean by votes counting. That you did not get your way in any given election or that you live in a country that has given you 200 plus years of freedom, including the right to speak your mind, even when it will not necessarily count.

  • Red_Arrow
    I can understand you believing that, but it is incorrect. When we were formed as a nation, there was very poor mass communication. People lived in small communities as well as large ones, but they were far apart and the only communication was mail by pony express, which took days and even weeks. The power of voting was given to the governments of the states, not the people. Over time, the idea of the people themselves having the power of voting took over, but there was still the problem of slow communication. Also, for some reason it was decided to give some extra power to states with small populations. So each state got a number of votes based on population.
    The governments of the states were allowed to divide their populations into areas and each area would (supposedly) represent the choice of those people. But the states let those in power set up the lines for the areas and the states picked them so more votes would be going to certain groups.
    So the total vote ends up tainted by the state political party in power. In a close vote, often the results can favor the political party instead of just the voters.
    But if enough people vote for a candidate, there will be enough votes that will force the states electoral votes to go to the real winner.
    • Red_Arrow

      There are changes possibly coming to try to override the bad influence of the internal lines, but these could cause even more misrepresentation.

    • NightFlirt

      Red you do realize that if absolutely no one in Rhode Island voted for a candidate that the Electoral College Vote would still go to one of the candidates.

    • Red_Arrow

      Not necessarily a party pick. Could be anyone, legally. But since the electoral group is made up of party people who are usually sworn to vote as the state vote went, if there was no state winner they could pick anyone, not just one of the parties.
      And this all goes to show that people's votes DO count. Can't imagine 0 votes, but to overcome very small votes it is that much more important that most (preferably all) people vote so that they DO count.

    • Show All
  • Curmudgeon
    "If you convinced every voter in any one state of your choice not to vote for either candidate, the Electoral College Vote would still go to one of the candidates."

    Actually, NO, it would go to the 3rd party candidate. The last election where this happened was 1968, but it DID happen.

    There are symbolic "protest electoral votes" that have happened, but those have never materially affected the outcome, and if they ever *did* there would be a court case on it for sure.
  • WhiteSteve
    To be fair... my biggest concern with democracy is that very concept. The average person is dumb as hell, and half of them are even dumber than that. I think it was George Carlin thatpointed out that these same people are the same ones voting for American Idol... I mean... holy fuck😱😱😱
    • WhiteSteve

      Just to save you time on a reply, it should be noted I don’t think humans were ever supposed to get past small tribes, so we’re thousands of years into an irreparable collective fuck-up by the entire species. So my opinions don’t really apply well to the fabricated reality we created for ourselves and choose to live in, haha

  • ItsyBits
    The popular vote does have a bearing on the electoral votes. The popular vote in each state determines who gets the electoral votes from that state with a few exceptions where some states can split their electors based on state law.
  • mattdzz
    Popular vote by state does count; so, I don't know what this mudshark is on, but she's about as educated on the matter as a freshman in college who wants to dismantle the economy :P
  • jakeofalltrades
    the idea is that the electoral collage would follow the lead of people and vote for who they voted for. it is also important because otherwise states with large populations like New York and California would dominate the election with no regard for what the rest of the country wants
  • WTFever
    Your wrong. The popular vote does matter, but it's the popular vote in each individual state that matters and of the whole country. That is how the Electoral College works, and it works well, and how it was designed to work.
  • SunshineShelly
    If we switch to the popular vote, then I don't want anyone to cry when Bernie loses. Deal?
  • Rissyanne
    How come we didn’t hear liberals whine about this till they lost the election?
  • johnieohm
    your wrong, the electoral votes carries more weight but there is more to it. if you want to know the electoral college is kinda based on the popular vote in some aspects The presidential election is held every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. You help choose your state’s electors when you vote for President because when you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidate’s electors.
    Most states have a “winner-take-all” system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of “proportional representation.”
  • Jaydon45
    damn!!! we didn't get crooked Hilary! woe is us.
  • lanceman
    I 100 % agree
  • Anonymous
    Boo hoo, because of this retarded post I will make it my goal to push for even MORE electoral imbalance.

    California and NY can choke on shit, we're going to start voting all of your money and goodies over to us and you're going to pay for it! Just like what you've been doing to us for the past couple decades.
Loading...