Voting in US - What's the point?

[Dickberg101]

Not sure what you mean by that but 26 states do require that electors vote for whomever won said state's popular vote and thats more or less who the whole electoral college functions there hasn't been a single candidate losing due to electors not voting what their state has decided.

Apparently there are rumors floating that the electors will revolt against Trump and vote "No".

[Hisholyness]

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

Because its not a democracy its a republic

And its the United STATES, not the United people

[isuridedes]

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?

One argument for the Electoral College is that it provides greater emphasis on the State.

We are a Union made up of 50 States, and for an election like who will be our President the argument is that winning States is more meaningful than winning individual votes. The only way to make that work though is to level the playing field so that lower-population States can still have a meaningful voice in the process. And while this does create a scenario where a person can win the Electoral Vote but not the Popular, in practice they most often win both.

In the history of our country this has happened only 4 other times. The 2016 election was something like the 58th Presidential Election.

It is, I admit, an imperfect system... and one that we should probably look at with scrutiny to see if its purpose still aligns with its functionality. But to argue for its abolishment as though this turnout was representative of a fundamental failure? History suggests that isn't the case.

...

Now in regards to your specific vote. Donald Trump won the Presidential Election by a very, very, very slim margin. If Clinton had won Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania she would have taken the election. She lost Michigan by 10,700, Wisconsin by ~22,000, and Pennsylvania by ~64,000.

Every vote counts. People who think otherwise have a very short-term memory.

[Hisholyness]

Apparently there are rumors floating that the electors will revolt against Trump and vote "No".

This is illegal in 28 states

[Palizangetsu]

The problem is that these garbage, moocher, failed red states aren't going to vote to change, because it would cut off their steady supply of fat federal checks from blue states that are propping them up.

Just want to point out that if those said states followed lets say the ACA aka Obamacare, abortion, and all forms social reforms in the same way democratic states do the would be mooching more money.

[Th1ghsofSteel]

The vast majority of voting systems could do with tweaking or completey redesigning. But after a close run election with two relatively unpopular candidates is NOT the time to do it.
I doubt any western country has the appetite for fundamental voting reform, least of all because far too many people who would need to vote for it have there noses in the trough of government.

[Palizangetsu]

Apparently there are rumors floating that the electors will revolt against Trump and vote "No".

There is only a handful I doubt it would be enough and even if they don't vote enough for Trump but also don't give the vote to Clinton the the Republican controlled House would select the president.

[Dickberg101]

This is illegal in 28 states

Come on... you are really going to start flashing laws around this like they matter? At this point, from what I can see as an outsider, your government officials don't really follow the law as if they were citizens. It erupts into the media.. people get pissed... officials make some half-hearted statement about "investigating" and then we never hear about the incident again.

- - - Updated - - -

The vast majority of voting systems could do with tweaking or completey redesigning. But after a close run election with two relatively unpopular candidates is NOT the time to do it.
I doubt any western country has the appetite for fundamental voting reform, least of all because far too many people who would need to vote for it have there noses in the trough of government.

Canada does...

We're still considering it seriously.

[Stormdash]

Apparently there are rumors floating that the electors will revolt against Trump and vote "No".

Desperate fantasy, more than rumors per se.

[Dickberg101]

There is only a handful I doubt it would be enough and even if they don't vote enough for Trump but also don't give the vote to Clinton the the Republican controlled House would select the president.

At this point i would be comfortable with Bush getting back in. I think that's how most Republicans feel. I think that's how a lot of Americans feel. I think a lot of America, while bitter, would accept a conservative government...

so long as it's not with Trump at the head.

[Jtbrig7390]

There isn't any for a lot of people.

Like me why vote Dem when my state is rep by a huge margin and the EC can just pay a fine and change who they vote for.

[Hisholyness]

Come on... you are really going to start flashing laws around this like they matter? At this point, from what I can see as an outsider, your government officials don't really follow the law as if they were citizens. It erupts into the media.. people get pissed... officials make some half-hearted statement about "investigating" and then we never hear about the incident again.

- - - Updated - - -



Canada does...

We're still considering it seriously.

The law is the ONLY thing we can "flash" when it comes to actually mattering

[Palizangetsu]

This is illegal in 28 states

By illegal only carry fines or something negligible or they just get replaced.

[Listrata]

How is it of great concern? I live in a state where you go to jail for a year if you get caught with weed and where you can go buy a gun at a pawn shop without getting a background check done for at least a few weeks, if at all. Oh and we still have counties who are refusing to let gay couples get married.

They're not overthrowing anyone. It's literally adhering to the greater number of people in the country.

Why didn't weed become legal every where?
Why is there a delay in background check?
Why is gay marriage a problem in some counties?

Ask your own state.

[Listrata]

Because republicans? Not really a mystery.

Then help make changes in your state. If majority of people in you state have the same views they will (with you) make those changes. There are states that share your views a bit more and would welcome another potential tax payer. If your impatient in the state you are currently in.

[Palizangetsu]

That makes a lot of sense. I'm just going to call up my sister and tell her that Obama had little impact on her life, even though he appointed the Supreme Court justices that voted to allow her to marry her wife. Tomorrow, I'll visit the grave of my friend who died on 9/11, after a President ignored warnings for months about a pending attack, and then maybe after that the grave of my friend that died in Iraq after a President executed a war there. It's all the same, right? Doesn't really matter, now if you don't mind I need to go take a drive on Eisenhower's federal highway system.

I forgot that Obama selected all the Justices on the Supreme Court... Oh wait he didn't and many presidents don't even get to select a justice. Congress gave the president the ok to go into Iraq and Congress is selected based on local elections. Now you are reaching with "Eisenhower's federal highway system" he signed the bill that was drafted in Congress and passed by Congress, so he gets credit simply because he didn't veto a law and signed it. Both parties overwhelming approved that law and almost any president would have signed it. You can pull very individual cases but more often than not a President has very little effect on the every day lives of the people.

[Stormdash]

By illegal only carry fines or something negligible or they just get replaced.

The 306 electors pledged to Trump are people chosen by either the Trump campaign itself, or by the state GOP in that state. They were chosen in large part on the characteristic of loyalty. So even where it wouldn't actually be a minor crime to break with their state election results, it would in all instances mean the end of their political careers. For what? So they can try to make someone whom none of them voted for, President?

[Deleted]

so from this post i can assume you were anti-trump, which is fine, but let me ask you this. if you dont like the system, would you have griped if the electoral was in your candidates favor as opposed to the current situation? guessing you wouldnt be bitching then. also, how much how much "change" of the system have you postulated to your local congressman? im guessing none also. its really easy to sit back on your hands and bitch about a problem when you dont help to change it. this is a simple cycle of politics in america and its been this way for ages. not sure why all the anti-trump folks dont get this. we had obama 2 terms. he made little palpable change, so then the cycle for trump begins. he will go a couple terms more than likely, and then a dem again. this notion that the popular vote doesnt mean anything like its new is stupid at best. everyone knows its flawed. has been for decades, but now that its a candidate that you dont like, its gotta change RIGHT NOW huh?

I am not anti-Trump or in favor of Hillary. My point is result of the election doesn't reflect the majority of people's wishes. It doesn't matter who got elected, if Trump lost EC and won popular vote then I would have said the same thing.

[Mormolyce]

Well let's take a look at it. Using the results from wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...election,_2016

These might be slightly out of date what with all the late ballots and the new recounts but it's pretty close. About 65 million Americans voted Hillary and 63 million voted Trump. However due to the winner-take-all nature of the Electoral College, whoever wins the majority of votes in each state takes all the EC votes (except Maine and Nebraska). Therefore, if you voted for the losing side in your state your vote didn't count (except those two). It could've been 99-1% or 51%-49%, doesn't matter, winner gets all those votes anyway. If you look at the winning side in each state (again, except Maine and Nebraska) that's actually 32 million Hillary voters versus 41 million Trump voters (the 6 million people voting for third party candidates don't count either but they're probably used to that :P).

So in total, 73 million voters' votes actually counted. In perspective:

US population: 319m
Eligible to vote: 229m (~71% of population)
Turned out to vote: 136m (~43% of population)
Vote actually counted: 73m (~23% of population)

Of course the Presidency in total is Winner Take All, so you could argue that actually only the 41m Trump voters (in states won by Republicans) "counted". That's about 13% of the US population.

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.

That's incorrect, US voters vote for a Presidential candidate exactly the same as if they were directly electing the President. The Electoral College only kicks in in the way the votes are counted.

So if your state has 1 million Trump and 2 million Hillary votes, Hillary gets all the EC votes for that state, but you still know exactly how many people voted "popularly". If you just take those numbers and tally them up for every state, boom there's your popular vote. That's how they calculate it every election.

[micwini]

Because the US has so many different cultures together in one country I think this system is more fair than a popular vote.