“Get out and vote!”
“Your vote counts!”
That’s what I have been hearing for my entire voting life. BUT………did you know that if you live in 1 of 39 states, your vote could not matter at all. As a matter of fact if all the constituents of these 39 states all voted for the same presidential candidate and the remaining 11 states voted oppositely, that candidate would win.
How so? ….good question.
It’s called the electoral college system. The electoral college system is comprised of 538 votes. Of which, a presidential candidate must win the majority, or 270 of those votes. Well to get 270 votes, a candidate just has to win New York, Texas, California, Florida, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey, Virgina, and North Carolina. If you live in any other state – Sorry, your vote doesn’t really count.
Ok. Ok. I know what you’re thinking now. What if more people actually voted for Candidate A but Candidate B actually had more electoral votes? Unfortunately, Candidate B has it sewed up.
Just in case you missed the 2000 Presidential Race, here’s what happened. George W. Bush received 50,456,002 popular votes with 271 electoral votes, while his adversary, Al Gore, won the popular vote with 50,999,897 votes and 266 electoral votes. And yes, you have it – George W. won the presidency (which I’m sure you knew).
So there you have it. Is it right? So how do you feel now? Especially if you live in any of the 39 non-important states?
Loading ...
I think it is rather disheartening to the American people in these states because their vote in essence might not count. Even more importantly, presidential candidates know this and will focus more attention on the larger states during their campaign.
Can you or should you?
Legally, yes you can. Based on our system of government, you should be able to as well.
Remember, you have no legal right to vote for the president in the first place. People seem to forget this little fact.
It’s not only in essence, your vote literally doesn’t count towards electing the president.
Each representative is “suppose” to cast their vote for his/her constituents, which means your vote should count.
Each member of the electoral college is “suppose” to, but they are not legally obligated to which means your vote may not count on someone else’s whim. This is what maintains the illusion of a elective democracy in this country.
I think its super silly that the person with the most votes doesn’t win.
ROCK THE VOTE!
I concur. But how wise would it be for the representative to vote against the candidate that has the majority of the votes in his district?
I would place it in the “unwise” category. That being said, if a member of the electoral college were to do this, they could not be held accountable in a legal sense.
Sadly enough, that is true.
I used to be gung-ho for the EC, but now that I’m wiser I know better. California could have a billion people, and 5 of them could actually vote and the winner of that state gets buku EC votes. The system, like many things in our govt, is flawed and reflects a dated time when a higher percentage of Americans voted.
Under the current system of electing the President, presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,659 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado– 68%, Iowa –75%, Michigan– 73%, Missouri– 70%, New Hampshire– 69%, Nevada– 72%, New Mexico– 76%, North Carolina– 74%, Ohio– 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware –75%, Maine — 77%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas –80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi –77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 74% , Massachusetts — 73%, New York — 79%, Washington — 77%, and West Virginia- 81%. Support is strong in every partisan and demographic group surveyed.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes — 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector’s own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
I love the electoral college because it was put in place to prevent disastrous effects to the country by ninnies who don’t know the difference between the branches of government. Yes, you’re stupid so I know whats best for you.
You should thank me but you just feel insulted so eh, oh well. I still knows whats best. *slaps you in face with paper that says “I KNOW MORE THAN YOU”*
If the representatives from each state voted according to their district, which is more reflective of how they should vote I think it would make for a more interesting race. Instead of this winner take all crap which clearly does not represent our nation.
Our nation is now one of large metro areas than the small towns it used to be.
It’s a nice thing to go out and vote — I enjoy it — but your single vote is not going to make a difference regardless of the electoral system.