Voting in US - What's the point?

[Deleted]

I would agree with you if it wasnt an indisputable fact, and I beg you to ask more people than just me (educated people outside of the internet) maybe call your state representative and ask him that question, maybe you can tell him how his dumbass opinion doesnt matter because Irlking the Mechagnome of MMO-champ says we live in a democracy

Thank you for using my title High overlord, makes me feel empowered

[smooshtheman]

Thank you for using my title High overlord, makes me feel empowered

even more empowerment : http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...8#post43631368

[cuafpr]

Which is relevant to the point about the US system as originally designed being obsolete, how?

you are free to think its obsolete, to be honest before i dug into the EC after this election i thought so to, but i understand its purpose a bit better and think its the right way to do things to give each state and equal voice if not each person one on a national level. each person should have an equal voice in their state though.

[Ghostpanther]

you are free to think its obsolete, to be honest before i dug into the EC after this election i thought so to, but i understand its purpose a bit better and think its the right way to do things to give each state and equal voice if not each person one on a national level. each person should have an equal voice in their state though.

It is not they think the electoral college is obsolete, but rather they are upset their candidate lost. I feel if Hillary had won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote, some of those on here complaining would be silent or defending the EC. I am referring to those on here who are US citizens and voted. The other non voters and non US citizen's input matters little.

If a person does not vote, you should not be complaining. It is your individual input into the direction the country goes however small of a impact it is. It is some. Those who do not vote, their impact is zero. :P

[Mayhem]

The populace at large is generally uninformed. Yes, there is a MASSIVE amount of data available to the public, but there is no viable method available that can properly sift through that data to present the facts in an unbiased manner. Furthermore, even if that data could be sifted, categorized, and presented in such a fashion, should that data present one candidate in a positive light and the other, a negative, how inclined do you think a reactionary voter base would be to interpret those findings as "unbiased"? People are biased; by belief, by creed, by nationality, race, sexuality, and most of all, by upbringing and personal experience. If you were raised to be distrustful of Republicans/Democrats, you're likely to react negatively to them and thus vote for the opposition without a objective examination of the facts and figures.

In short, the American public is too stupid and reactionary to vote the "correct" person into office. Never mind the fact that there is no "correct" candidate as neither candidate's actions have yet to be determined, nor can we safely say what kind of presidency either candidate would have due to the how the Senate, the House, and Congress as a whole functions.

And now to the fun part, how is it decides who is part of the EC?
Is bribing 270 people easier than bribing millions?

[Annoying]

That is just an Op-Ed

The US has been a Republic (whether you call it Constitutional or Federal) for our entire history as a sovereign state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_republic
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co...ional_republic
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Have you kids forgotten the old pledge we all used to say in school?

Fun fact, the original pledge wasn't quite the same.

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality and fraternity for all."

Francis Bellamy came up with that originally in 1892. He was a socialist, and used that originally, but changed "equality and fraternity" to "liberty and justice" because the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. "United States of America" was added in 1923. "Under god" wasn't added until June 14, 1954, through efforts from the Knights of Columbus.

<Insert "the more you know" rainbow>

[Symphonic]

And now to the fun part, how is it decides who is part of the EC?
Is bribing 270 people easier than bribing millions?

Each candidates political party designates electors, usually at the state convention. For example, in Utah, the Republican had 6 chosen to be his elector, the Democrat had to choose 6 electors, and even Evan McMullin had 6 electors chosen in the case he won the state.
Most of the time they're government officials, people who hold public office, party leaders, or just people close to the candidate.

[cuafpr]

And now to the fun part, how is it decides who is part of the EC?
Is bribing 270 people easier than bribing millions?

some states elect EC's some states appoint them via the state gov't or governor from what i know there is no "set" way to do it.

[Mayhem]

Each candidates political party designates electors, usually at the state convention. For example, in Utah, the Republican had 6 chosen to be his elector, the Democrat had to choose 6 electors, and even Evan McMullin had 6 electors chosen in the case he won the state.
Most of the time they're government officials, people who hold public office, party leaders, or just people close to the candidate.

And people trust them to be unbiased? I see some issues.

[Zoranon]

The finest point of electoral college is that it forces the candidates to appeal to a diverse sections of the population in order to get elected. Liberals seem really keen on diversity so they should be big fans of this. Or they would be, if for them diversity was not only skin deep.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, such a silly idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Californias except it almost made it on the ballot in 2014.

Something like this is never going to happen this way. Both Reps and Dems would have to agree and so there must be no political disadvantages for either. So for example, if you want to divided California, it will have to be divided into an odd number of states, with Dems having one more than Reps in order to keep the balance in Senate. Or you could keep 3 Rep states and 3 Dem states and admit Dc in one package. Simply put, something like this is only going to happen after some grand political bargain, think Missouri compromise, not some initiative in one state.

[Duravian]

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

America is NOT... a democracy. We are a constitutional republic and if you would like to know exactly why the Founding Fathers spent more time on the electoral college than any other piece of legislation, I suggest you take advantage of the Age of Information and google it. I'll give you a clue however: Democracy = mob rule.

[ranzino]

...I'll give you a clue however: Democracy = mob rule.

But you are fine with "mob rule" at any other time an election is held ?
Not to mention the rest of the free world runs fine with democracy, oh-so special-snowflakes in US of A.

[Zoranon]

But you are fine with "mob rule" at any other time an election is held ?
Not to mention the rest of the free world runs fine with democracy, oh-so special-snowflakes in US of A.

Ignorant and arrogant, people like you give us in Europe a bad name. There is a reason why almost all European countries accepted the US concept of checks and balances after WW2 and the failure of unchecked democracy before that...

[Annoying]

The finest point of electoral college is that it forces the candidates to appeal to a diverse sections of the population in order to get elected. Liberals seem really keen on diversity so they should be big fans of this. Or they would be, if for them diversity was not only skin deep.

It's supposed to force the candidates to do that, but it doesn't. 3/4 of all of the campaign events were in 6 states. 97% of them were in just 12 states.

[Allybeboba]

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

Kek...
People are still whining and complaining about this. Get over it, Hillary lost.

The U.S. of A. is not a democracy, it is republic. The electoral system has worked for the U.S. and has
allowed it to last longer than any single contiguous running government on the planet. Nay, the galaxy... Nah, the known Universe.

[Zoranon]

It's supposed to force the candidates to do that, but it doesn't. 3/4 of all of the campaign events were in 6 states. 97% of them were in just 12 states.

Hm thats still probably more states than in a popular vote contest. Nobody would care about, say Rust Belt then.

[Tijuana]

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?

Every vote counts. Every vote cast, is put towards their state total.

Also, this is about the 9th open thread discussing the Electoral College.

[Duravian]

But you are fine with "mob rule" at any other time an election is held ?

Can you clarify what you mean by this, exactly?

[Deleted]

America is NOT... a democracy. We are a constitutional republic and if you would like to know exactly why the Founding Fathers spent more time on the electoral college than any other piece of legislation, I suggest you take advantage of the Age of Information and google it. I'll give you a clue however: Democracy = mob rule.

Apparently you need to follow your own advice. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.565e7f5688cf

[Deleted]

go google the electoral college and why it was implemented instead of popular vote. People dont need to explain it to people to lazy to look up such a simple question. Its been asked many times and its been explained many times. If you dont like it? go to another country then, or become a politician and try to change it. Its not going anywhere anytime soon.

Well said!

Also, to note: the system recently helped the US SIGNIFICANTLY.