Voting in US - What's the point?

[Deleted]

You're right, in a democracy if something isn't working correctly, people need to "shut the hell up"
Great thinking! Nothing should ever be changed! I don't even know why we moved from feudal times or why the USA made a move for independence? In the end, they should just have accepted that "blaming the system is bullshit" and should just have "shut the hell up" because "it has been like that for a very freaky long time". In the end "it might look like a joke, but who cares?" It's not like the president of the USA is important in any... oh... wait.


But... we do.
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-trump...ct-way-2451745
Hillary had 2,235,663 more votes than Trump.
In a popular vote, Hillary would have won.

This was the most stupid shit I have ever read so far.

Barrack Obama was president, did he want to change the vote selection? no? Did hillary or Trump get selected for change the system? No?

did any of the above 3 names mention how dumb or stupid it was? No?

guess what they didn't care, cuz they knew how it was. If you want change, go start a campaign of yours and do it, sure if people are willing to support you then it would happend.

Do you see a difference? Right now people are whining over trump won, so what? both trump and hillary knew how the system worked, so the whiny bitches should ofc just shut the hell up. the vote doesn't need to change, the people has to, cuz then the system will as well.

Don't reply bs to me its waste of everyones time, let me know when you start a campaign to make a change, then i'll agree on your points. but random whine, nope.

[NineSpine]

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.

When the country was founded, those positions and the right to vote were legally limited to wealthy white men, by design.

[XangXu]

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?

Once again. It's a sad fact but it should not affect the outcome. And you said it RIGHT in your own statement "Most major cities are Liberal"

Well fucking fancy that! It's like they are upset that the majority of the population aren't racist, homophobic hick assholes who want daily prayer in public schools.

Once again, the Electoral College caters to the individual person who is running for president NOT the ideas he represents and stands for. It really is a crying shame that ol' Hick Farmer John's 1 single vote for his racist candidate isn't going to matter but you know what... that's just how the cookie crumbles. Maybe he should try to become part of the human race and stop holding the country back with his oudated "farmer john" ideas.

If your nation is slowly but surely turning into a progressive one... FUCKING LET IT...

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

US Presidential system is not on a popular vote basis, so we don't know who would have won the popular vote had it been under that system.

Different countries have different voting systems for differing reasons, in the US they are very much into States having more power than regions would have in most nations, so their system represents that.

Unless you are obligated to vote, then you don't have to vote, abstaining is a perfectly legitimate way of voting in most systems.

Not much to say beyond this.

[Palizangetsu]

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?

You are clearly missing something let me explain the system to you, each party picks electors that vote for their party. Come election day we are essentially voting for which party's electors. So if a state votes Democrat the democrat electors are selected to vote for said state. So we have control of what party the electors are of but no control over who the actual electors are.

[Flatspriest]

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.

You should really learn what you are talking about prior to spouting your nonsense. California and New York still have the most EC votes. The other states have less than those 2 depending on each states population and with a minimum amount for each state. Where California has 55 EC votes, New Mexico has 5. That way, California still has the most say who becomes president, but they do not have the ability to dominate the smaller states that they wish they had. For such a progressive political party, they sure have the opinion that if they don't get their way, then it needs to change to a different system for everyone. BTW, I am not a Republican either. I'm an Independent. I vote for whoever I think is going to do the best job regardless of their party affiliation.

[Valizix]

I'm european so I don't have any personal experience, but from outside point of view it seems to me that US voting is just a show they put up to pretend democracy.

Someone from Europe saying America has pretend democracy....I'm just saying

[MasterOfNone]

You should really learn what you are talking about prior to spouting your nonsense. California and New York still have the most EC votes. The other states have less than those 2 depending on each states population and with a minimum amount for each state. Where California has 55 EC votes, New Mexico has 5. That way, California still has the most say who becomes president, but they do not have the ability to dominate the smaller states that they wish they had. For such a progressive political party, they sure have the opinion that if they don't get their way, then it needs to change to a different system for everyone. BTW, I am not a Republican either. I'm an Independent. I vote for whoever I think is going to do the best job regardless of their party affiliation.

good points here. a lot of folks dont realize that, and i called a guy out on that very fact earlier. if clinton was elected most of this bullshit wouldnt exist....just sayin

[Listrata]

When the country was founded, those positions and the right to vote were legally limited to wealthy white men, by design.

Design and is are different. Be happy social changes brought with it diversity in our electoral system.

[NineSpine]

You should really learn what you are talking about prior to spouting your nonsense. California and New York still have the most EC votes. The other states have less than those 2 depending on each states population and with a minimum amount for each state. Where California has 55 EC votes, New Mexico has 5. That way, California still has the most say who becomes president, but they do not have the ability to dominate the smaller states that they wish they had. For such a progressive political party, they sure have the opinion that if they don't get their way, then it needs to change to a different system for everyone.

If you take the bottom states and add them up until you include enough states to match the population of California, you end with TWICE as many electoral votes as California, functionally making a Californian have half the voting power of someone from any one of those states. If the EC had electors proportional to the population of the states, you may have a point, but they don't. The different is not small. The difference is literally about double the voting power for each person if you live in a small state.

Your defense of the system doesn't seem to be based on that it is useful or that it has positive results, but simply that the system exists. Sorry, that isn't good enough. Protection of bad power structures or government systems just because they currently exist is the OPPOSITE of progressivism.

[Palizangetsu]

Once again. It's a sad fact but it should not affect the outcome. And you said it RIGHT in your own statement "Most major cities are Liberal"

Well fucking fancy that! It's like they are upset that the majority of the population aren't racist, homophobic hick assholes who want daily prayer in public schools.

Once again, the Electoral College caters to the individual person who is running for president NOT the ideas he represents and stands for.

If your nation is slowly but surely turning into a progressive one... FUCKING LET IT...

The issue is that this would give anyone with a different view no voice and leave many of the small states neglected with very little political power. You are also making the assumption that if anyone is conservative they are "racist, homophobic hick assholes who want daily prayer in public schools."

[NineSpine]

Design and is are different. Be happy social changes brought with it diversity in our electoral system.

You can't have it both ways. You can't appeal to the intent and design of a system that has changed in so many other ways. If the intent and design are so damn important, we should return to wealthy white men being the only voters. If the intent and design are sacrosanct, you have to square that with that the intent and design has already changed in innumerable other ways that have broken the original intent and design anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

The issue is that this would give anyone with a different view no voice and leave many of the small states neglected with very little political power. You are also making the assumption that if anyone is conservative they are "racist, homophobic hick assholes who want daily prayer in public schools."

Why should those of us in successful, economically important states, who pour our hard earned tax dollars into those failed, garbage red states, also be forced to live under their government?

[BananaHandsB]

blaming the system is bullshit, people who are mad over the voting system needs to shut the hell up . it is not first time this is implanted. it has been like that for a very freaky long time. both hillary and trump knew this to begin with, so i really do not see the actual issue. yes it might look like a joke, but who cares? as they knew from the beginning this is how it would be. It is like you join a casual guild and then wonder why they dont raid hardcore.

The OP is just asking legitimate questions. Why not try to answer instead of becoming insanely defensive?

[Listrata]

You can't have it both ways. You can't appeal to the intent and design of a system that has changed in so many other ways. If the intent and design are so damn important, we should return to wealthy white men being the only voters. If the intent and design are sacrosanct, you have to square that with that the intent and design has already changed in innumerable other ways that have broken the original intent and design anyway.

- - - Updated - - -



Why should those of us in successful, economically important states, who pour our hard earned tax dollars into those failed, garbage red states, also be forced to live under their government?

Oh dear, was one of your nine lives in Germany by chance?

[Flatspriest]

If you take the bottom states and add them up until you include enough states to match the population of California, you end with TWICE as many electoral votes as California, functionally making a Californian have half the voting power of someone from any one of those states. If the EC had electors proportional to the population of the states, you may have a point, but they don't. The different is not small. The difference is literally about double the voting power for each person if you live in a small state.

Your defense of the system doesn't seem to be based on that it is useful or that it has positive results, but simply that the system exists. Sorry, that isn't good enough. Protection of bad power structures or government systems just because they currently exist is the OPPOSITE of progressivism.

Again, you are talking about a great many states as opposed to one. Why should that one state have all say over all those other states simply because it has a larger population? What if the values of those other states do no mesh with those of California? Should they be under California's rule simply because California has the higher population? They're different states and each state gets a say, whether it be a small say or a big say, but each and every state gets to determine who they want and those smaller states can add up as Shillary found out during this election.

[Palizangetsu]

Why should those of us in successful, economically important states, who pour our hard earned tax dollars into those failed, garbage red states, also be forced to live under their government?

I guess you don't understand that the name of the country is "The United States of America" also Texas is a very successful and economically important and so are many of these so called garbage red states where do you think most manufacturing and agriculture in this country are done?

[NineSpine]

Again, you are talking about a great many states as opposed to one. Why should that one state have all say over all those other states simply because it has a larger population? What if the values of those other states do no mesh with those of California? Should they be under California's rule simply because California has the higher population? Their different states and each state gets a say, whether it be a small say or a big say, but each and every state gets to determine who they want and those smaller states can add up as Shillary found out during this election.

Everyone would have the same say. Why should one person's vote count twice as much as another person? You are the one arguing that one group of people should have more important votes, not me.

[twelvethirty]

i show up for the state and local ballot Qs. The presidential election is really just a sideshow. The president isnt as powerful as you think they are.

[XangXu]

The issue is that this would give anyone with a different view no voice and leave many of the small states neglected with very little political power. You are also making the assumption that if anyone is conservative they are "racist, homophobic hick assholes who want daily prayer in public schools."

First, the Majority represents the Whole.

Secondly, I agree, it's a crying shame that people with different opinions don't get their voice heard. It really is. This fact, should not negate the will of the majority of the people (Americans). Once again this takes me back to the golden age of the Internet.

Voices are heard. On Facebook, On Twitter, on his very Forum, on the News, on Youtube, through polls, stats, and voiced opinions. Getting information and relaying ideas is NOT a difficult task these days.

Really, the popular vote is important because it's in the god damned name. A candidates ideas are more POPULAR than the other Candidate's. Raw physical numbers prove it. And once again, you should be electing the IDEAS not the man behind them. America fell for that trap this time around.


If 6 friends walk into a Pizza Joint and 5 of them all agree that a Double Cheese with Pepperoni is the way to go... why should they have to cater to that one guy in the group who thinks the whole pizza should be covered with anchovies?

He may like anchovies sure, but more people don't like them. Therefore, he loses the popular vote.

End of story.

[Grym]

Why should those of us in successful, economically important states, who pour our hard earned tax dollars into those failed, garbage red states, also be forced to live under their government?

I am not US so I will make an assumption here.

That would be because if big economically important state gets to dominate, they will continue to focus investment and such within those area, and screw the smaller states "they can just get hand outs".

But those small states wants investment, they don't want hand outs. They want to be able to build up economical power themselves. While it is questionable that would it happen or be successful under EC is still to be seen (let's see how Trump act on that), but if larger economically important states had the total say, then you can almost guarantee it won't happen full stop.

It may not work, but they want that chance.