I beg to differ.
The electorial college is based off a states overall population, so each state gets more votes if it is larger, so if you live in a large state your vote indivudualy is worth less to determine the state outcome, but this is countered by the fact that the state is worth more overall, so it balances out.
Remeber we are a union of states, it is not the united people of america, the electorial college has worked for this whole time and it will work again here in a couple of weeks. And im gonna vote, so nyah! ^_^
The two resons why i am voting:
1) I really dont like Kerry, so i am gonna vote against him (before i payed attention, i was gonna just default my vote for Bush, that is, if i dont vote it doesnt really matter cause Bush Is gonna win KS anyways.)
2) The guys we got in Manhattan are doing really well, so they need to be reelected. This is prob. a more important reason to vote for someone in manhappiness anyways.
so there.
6 comments:
Except that the reason the electoral college was established was not because they thought it should be done by states but because till the past 50 years it would have been impossible to use the popular vote. Now that it is possible to use the popular vote... why not do it? Bush didn't win the popular vote and I think that means he shouldn't have won the election, but that didn't happen. The majority of the United States did not want Bush in office. My vote didn't count because I voted in Kansas and Kansas has gone Republican for years and years and years. Why is that fair? Your vote only counts if it is consistent with the beliefs of your neighbors? No that's bullshit. I think popular vote is the best way to go.
OK, by you saying your vote doesn't count, you only mean for the prez, am i correct?
Your vote counts as much as any other kansan. just because who you vote for does not win the state does not mean your vote does not count, it just means the guy you voted for did not win the state. If we went to a popular vote and the canadate you voted for did not win the country does that mean your vote didn't count? No. It just means there were more people voting another way. Your vote counts either way.
The problem is that when you know that the rest of the state always votes Republican then there's no point in voting for president (as you pointed out in your original post). If I was in a swing state, then my vote would be important because it's unclear which way the state will go. When voting in Kansas, I mine as well not bother going to the polls (as far as the president goes). Thus my vote doesn't actually count because Bush would win Kansas whether or not I voted. Let's say for example that Bush wins Kansas (6 electoral votes) but 20,000 people vote for Kerry. Now let's say that Bush also wins Florida (for 10 electoral votes or whatever number they have) but he only wins by 537 votes. If the people who voted for Kerry in Kansas lived in Florida, their vote could have swung the state the other way. Furthermore, the electorates have no obligation to go with the popular vote of their state and in fact have gone against the popular vote. With popular vote, no matter where you live your vote would make a difference in who gets elected. There would be no more campaigning only in "key states" and the candidates would have to target all groups of people regardless of what state they are from.
Colorado was a republican state for many years, but now it is a state where voting 'matters'. Why is this? It is because people went out and voted when it 'didn't matter' and people started to realize not everyone thought the same. By you not voting, you would just be helping the idea that everyone in Kansas votes the same. If, no one with a different opinion ever voted then the first election for the state would decide it's position forever. Your vote does count, even if your guy doesn't win the state.
Also the electoral guys will almost always vote for who they are suppose to, and some states even have laws where they must vote for the guy that they are suppose to vote for. This should not be an issue of concern.
If you really want to help vote for the Libertarian Guy, that party needs alot of help (vote wise). But for the most part they make sense.
Also Riley (or Manhattan) is voting whether or not to repeal the law that requires bars to have at least 30% of sells to be food. We need to get rid of that.
I know the point you are trying to make, but I think the electoral college is an outdated system that should be replaced. No concern, I will most decidedly vote. Why do we want bars to not sell food?
Is the electorial college outdated? that is a question that i don't know. I still like it beacuse i think it is usefull to keep our stateness in the united states... but yes it doesn't always makes sense, and it seems more complicated than it has to be.
I'm not saying that bars can't have food, I am saying they shouldn't be forced to sell food.
Post a Comment