Voting in US - What's the point?

[NineSpine]

Voting in the United States probably matters more than it matters anywhere in the world, when you factor in the full scope of what you get to vote about.

The limited understanding of those who mistakenly think this country is supposed to have a singular nation-wide popular vote for the President is their problem, not a flaw in our system.

Voting in the US matters less than most developed nations, for one very important reason: We vote for too many offices. While this may seem like it makes your vote matter more, it actually makes it matter less, because it is practically infeasible for enough people to inform themselves about the massive number of candidates and positions that we have on the ballot, so the vast majority of the votes are guesses at worst, party line choices at best. In countries the elect fewer positions, the people you actually do elect appoint those other positions, making the vote for that person both individually more important, and substantially easier for the average person to have a reasonable grasp on.

TL;DR: Your vote isn't that important when massive numbers of voters aren't even educated on the very, very basics of most of the candidates and offices on the ballot. It waters down the vote.

[Listrata]

I like to think of the EC as another house of representatives with different rules.

[NineSpine]

Alright. All your doing is arguing a popular vote. That's it. Welcome to the party, it's been going on for seemingly decades, but it's still lively and there's plenty of punch.

You've not remotely explained why the INTERNET suddenly levels the field for smaller states in a popular election. Thus making the EC moot.

You're not the original poster I quoted, so I'm not surprised you can't answer where his logic lies, because I'm pretty sure it's somewhere out in orbit. Not sure why you even bothered to reply to be quite honest.

I think you first need to back up and explain why small states need the electoral college to give them a fair shake. Regions already act together and vote together, making them effectively treated like large states anyway. Why do they need an EXTRA bonus from having their votes count twice as much as other peoples'?

[Stormdash]

I like to think of the EC as another house of representatives with different rules.

It's literally identical to a joint session of Congress, with just a single subject to vote upon every four years.

[Deleted]

calling someone not good for the country when they're not in office but have already made a positive impact

yep.

Well then... again the system is failed, for how can the electors know someone won't have a positive impact? So they can never vote against the will of the people since they're not prophets. So, why do they exist?

Also, since they were made to prevent a populist character, would you say Trump is not a populist character? Just an example, he said he'd prosecute Hillary. That was one of his last promises. Did he? No, he changed his mind. And I gave you this example specifically since it's not an opinion that changed over the years, it's something he switched in 2 weeks. Something which demonstrates his populism. He promised that because he knew many people voting for him did so because they knew Hillary had problems with the law. He used them.

[Stormdash]

Also, since they were made to prevent a populist character

This has nothing to do with anything the electoral college was designed for.

[XangXu]

Alright. All your doing is arguing a popular vote. That's it. Welcome to the party, it's been going on for seemingly decades, but it's still lively and there's plenty of punch.

You've not remotely explained why the INTERNET suddenly levels the field for smaller states in a popular election. Thus making the EC moot.

You're not the original poster I quoted, so I'm not surprised you can't answer where his logic lies, because I'm pretty sure it's somewhere out in orbit. Not sure why you even bothered to reply to be quite honest.

I would assume it levels the playing field because the instantaneous nature of sending data around the country changes the way you... count and track... votes?

When I think of the term "election" I think of a giant group of people writing down the name of the individual they want to lead them and then sending it off to be counted and tallied... end of story... Does there really need to be any other filtering process?

How are some states treated "unfairly" when the total number of vote from each individual is what would truly matter?

It wouldn't matter if you were in a tiny state, if the ideas that your candidate was prolific enough, then their ideas win via the people. And in the end, it's not the person who is running for president that matters... it's the ideas that he believes in.



I mean maybe i'm stupid but... Elections should be as simple as possible and I think this year's election proves it.

Edit: I also like in the video that it talks about how the government was worried about people "rising up en masse" and changing the election turnout. I mean wtf... that's the god damned point isn't it?

[Hammerfest]

Seeing as how the popular vote doesn't count for anything and electoral votes is what wins someone the presidency, what's the point of anyone voting?

You vote so that your state's electoral delegates go to the candidate you voted for. It's not hard to grasp.

[NineSpine]

This has nothing to do with anything the electoral college was designed for.

The original design of the country was for wealthy white men to elect representatives who were only tangentially accountable to even those wealthy white men. Senators and Presidents were not meant to be elected even by those wealthy white men who were allowed to vote, because they were meant to be elected by other electors, to remove the people from the process.

If you designed that system today, people would say you are establishing some kind of autocratic, bloated aristocracy, reminiscent more of a third world shithole than a developed nation.

[ranzino]

You vote so that your state's electoral delegates go to the candidate you voted for. It's not hard to grasp.

Why the need of EC then ?

[Flatspriest]

It is truly a joke. How is it a democracy when the decision made by majority of the people doesn't count?

The United States is NOT a democracy. We are a Democratic Rrepublic. Each state elects electors and then the vote for president is to tell our state electors who we want them to vote for. That way, no individual state can rule the election process. With New York and California both predominantly for the democrat party, no other parties candidate would ever win if not for the electoral college system. That is the reason the system was put in place in the first place to ensure each state had a say in who became president.

[Palizangetsu]

How are some states treated "unfairly" when the total number of vote from each individual is what would truly matter?

It wouldn't matter if you were in a tiny state, if the ideas that your candidate was prolific enough, then their ideas win via the people.

Most of the major cities are liberal and at that point politicians would only have to cater to the majority and disenfranchise the minority. Why would any politician campaign in states like Vermont or Wyoming when they could focus on much larger cities?

[Stormdash]

The original design of the country was for wealthy white men to elect representatives who were only tangentially accountable to even those wealthy white men. Senators and Presidents were not meant to be elected even by those wealthy white men who were allowed to vote, because they were meant to be elected by other electors, to remove the people from the process.

If you designed that system today, people would say you are establishing some kind of autocratic, bloated aristocracy, reminiscent more of a third world shithole than a developed nation.

No, again, not so much -- you guys are all projecting backwards in time and mistaking the Presidency that was designed in Article II for the bloated and over-powered office it is today. The ward against all those dangers the Framers created was a government of limited powers and checks and balances. There wasn't ever even in discussion a national popular election of the President, it wasn't even in the picture, and it had nothing to do with 'populism'. The President designed in Article II wouldn't be a useful vehicle for populist sentiment since the President in Article II has almost no power or influence whatsoever over domestic politics.

In the case of the electoral college, it was created as a form of checks and balances, but it's the one I've explained several times already -- a way to let "Congress" elect the President without actually letting Congress elect the President. Because those guys worked hardest on and were fondest of their design for Congress, they thought the bicameral legislature they designed was just about bang on perfection for equitable influence over the national government by each state... but you also can't let Congress pick the President who is supposed to be a check on the Congress, can you? So they invented a whole other separate "Congress" that the states would convene once every four years. It's not more complicated than that.

[Palizangetsu]

It is truly a joke. How is it a democracy when the decision made by majority of the people doesn't count?

Don't think there is a single pure democracy in existence.

[NineSpine]

The United States is NOT a democracy. We are a democratic republic. Each state elects electors and then the vote for president is to tell out state electors who we want them to vote for. That way, no individual state can rule the election process. With New York and California both predominantly for the democrat party, no other parties candidate would ever win if not for the electoral college system. That is the reason the system was put in place in the first place to ensure each state had a say in who became president.

A democratic republic is a form of indirect democracy, not a different type of system from democracy. No other party's candidates could win without the EC unless those parties adequately reflected the will of the people of the country, which somehow you have turned into an unfair requirement. What is unfair is giving a series of failed, garbage states that leech federal spending off of successful states like New York and California, DOUBLE the voting power of the successful states.

[Mohangz]

The popular vote is meaningless in the US election system, complaining that Hillary won the popular vote is pointless since you cant really know if she would have won it since people don't campaign to win the popular vote, they campaign to win the electoral college.

The electoral college is a good system its just another facet of the multi layered system of a representative democracy the that founders created to prevent the consolidation of power.

To really understand its importance i suggest you read or listen to an audio book of how direct popular vote for certain powerful political positions caused the down fall of the roman republic and allowed for the rise of military dictators and eventually an emperor.

Edit- This is an easy one to listen too good for people who get easily put to sleep by history lectures

dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-death-throes-of-the-republic-series/ you can find it for free on youtube some where most likely though it is nice to support good work

[Deleted]

Seeing as how the popular vote doesn't count for anything and electoral votes is what wins someone the presidency, what's the point of anyone voting? What's the point of trying to recount votes when it doesn't matter how many votes someone got?

Why do you even need to go vote at all when it's already decided by others you have no control over? Am I missing something?

It's only a problem because Trump won. If it was Hillary you wouldn't be here crying like a baby.

[Kalis]

Ah, I understand the point now, my bad.

If the US had compulsory voting, then the popular vote could be used as an argument, but it doesn't, so nobody knows how a popular vote would have gone.

Those of us who live in countries that use a FPTP system are used to its flaws, so we know that it puts people off voting if they think their vote is worthless. California is a good example; why bother voting if you are a Democrat or Republican? You know the state is going to go Democrat, so stay at home and put your feet up.

Oddly this happened in the Brexit vote as well, even though that was a popular vote, some people assumed Remain would win as the media kept saying so and didn't bother to vote. Polling can effect elections, rather than just report on them.

[NineSpine]

No, again, not so much -- you guys are all projecting backwards in time and mistaking the Presidency that was designed in Article II for the bloated and over-powered office it is today. The ward against all those dangers the Framers created was a government of limited powers and checks and balances. There wasn't ever even in discussion a national popular election of the President, it wasn't even in the picture, and it had nothing to do with 'populism'. The President designed in Article II wouldn't be a useful vehicle for populist sentiment since the President in Article II has almost no power or influence whatsoever over domestic politics.

In the case of the electoral college, it was created as a form of checks and balances, but it's the one I've explained several times already -- a way to let "Congress" elect the President without actually letting Congress elect the President. Because those guys worked hardest on and were fondest of their design for Congress, they thought the bicameral legislature they designed was just about bang on perfection for equitable influence over the national government by each state... but you also can't let Congress pick the President who is supposed to be a check on the Congress, can you? So they invented a whole other separate "Congress" that the states would convene once every four years. It's not more complicated than that.

The entire existence of the Constitution is based on the Articles of Confederation failing to give the federal government enough power to stop a populist uprising, specifically Shays' Rebellion.

[Listrata]

The original design of the country was for wealthy white men to elect representatives who were only tangentially accountable to even those wealthy white men. Senators and Presidents were not meant to be elected even by those wealthy white men who were allowed to vote, because they were meant to be elected by other electors, to remove the people from the process.

If you designed that system today, people would say you are establishing some kind of autocratic, bloated aristocracy, reminiscent more of a third world shithole than a developed nation.

To bad only white men can be electors

/sarcasism

People of a state are at the root of the process to choose electors. You too can go to committees and be a bigger participant in your state. Third world countries can't be compared to the complexities in your state let alone the whole of the Democratic Republic of the United States of America.