4 ms·

I'm surprised voter turnout isn't lower. Unless you live in a swing state, or Maine or Nebraska, voting for president is a waste of time. If you are in a swin

I'm surprised voter turnout isn't lower. Unless you live in a swing state, or Maine or Nebraska, voting for president is a waste of time. If you are in a swing state, it still might not matter unless you are in a swing district. It's a terribly broken voting system.

dublinben 11y ago
Voting for president is essentially always be a waste of time.[0] Many people have convinced themselves that this isn't the case, and we still have 'competitive' elections. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting
danielvf 11y ago
There's usually more than just the president on the ballot during national elections.
lukifer 11y ago
I find the psychology of voting fascinating. Most people are unwilling to vote for a third-party/longshot candidate, as their vote would be "wasted", despite the fact that their single vote is guaranteed not to matter. I think the driving motivation for most is the desire to be on the winning team, or if you're in the wrong county/state, to be able to say you fought the good fight for your side. In other words, despite the secret ballot, people vote more for reasons of in-group signaling than attempting to influence policy. As you say, the 50ish percent we do get is impressive. If we really care about turnout (and disincentivizing some of the shadier techniques campaigns use to manipulate turnout), we should turn Voting Day into a national holiday and a mandatory duty (perhaps with an opt-out "I choose to abstain" for true protest votes, but the point is that you still have to show up or mail your ballot, period.)
mvymvy 11y ago
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC. The national popular vote winner would receive all of the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states. Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count. In Maine, where they award electoral votes by congressional district, the closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine's 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored). In 2012, the whole state was ignored. 77% of Maine voters support a national popular vote for President In Nebraska, which also uses the district method, the 2008 presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska's reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the remaining (mostly rural) 2/3rds of the state were irrelevant. In 2012, the whole state was ignored. 74% of Nebraska voters support a national popular vote for President National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in presidential elections in each state. Now they don't matter to their candidate. And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state, are wasted and don't matter to candidates. Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659). In 2008, voter turnout in the then 15 battleground states averaged seven points higher than in the 35 non-battleground states. In 2012, voter turnout was 11% higher in the 9 battleground states than in the remainder of the country. Analysts already conclude that only the 2016 party winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire is not a foregone conclusion. So less than a handful of states will continue to dominate and determine the presidential general election With National Popular Vote, presidential campaigns would poll, organize, visit, and appeal to more than 7 states. One would reasonably expect that voter turnout would rise in 80%+ of the country that is currently conceded months in advance by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. The bill has passed a total of 33 legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions possessing 165 electoral votes—61% of the 270 electoral votes necessary to activate it http://www.NationalPopularVote.com http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

dublinben 11y ago

Voting for president is essentially always be a waste of time.[0] Many people have convinced themselves that this isn't the case, and we still have 'competitive' elections. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting

danielvf 11y ago

There's usually more than just the president on the ballot during national elections.

lukifer 11y ago

I find the psychology of voting fascinating. Most people are unwilling to vote for a third-party/longshot candidate, as their vote would be "wasted", despite the fact that their single vote is guaranteed not to matter. I think the driving motivation for most is the desire to be on the winning team, or if you're in the wrong county/state, to be able to say you fought the good fight for your side. In other words, despite the secret ballot, people vote more for reasons of in-group signaling than attempting to influence policy. As you say, the 50ish percent we do get is impressive. If we really care about turnout (and disincentivizing some of the shadier techniques campaigns use to manipulate turnout), we should turn Voting Day into a national holiday and a mandatory duty (perhaps with an opt-out "I choose to abstain" for true protest votes, but the point is that you still have to show up or mail your ballot, period.)

mvymvy 11y ago

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC. The national popular vote winner would receive all of the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states. Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count. In Maine, where they award electoral votes by congressional district, the closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine's 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored). In 2012, the whole state was ignored. 77% of Maine voters support a national popular vote for President In Nebraska, which also uses the district method, the 2008 presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska's reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the remaining (mostly rural) 2/3rds of the state were irrelevant. In 2012, the whole state was ignored. 74% of Nebraska voters support a national popular vote for President National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in presidential elections in each state. Now they don't matter to their candidate. And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state, are wasted and don't matter to candidates. Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659). In 2008, voter turnout in the then 15 battleground states averaged seven points higher than in the 35 non-battleground states. In 2012, voter turnout was 11% higher in the 9 battleground states than in the remainder of the country. Analysts already conclude that only the 2016 party winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire is not a foregone conclusion. So less than a handful of states will continue to dominate and determine the presidential general election With National Popular Vote, presidential campaigns would poll, organize, visit, and appeal to more than 7 states. One would reasonably expect that voter turnout would rise in 80%+ of the country that is currently conceded months in advance by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. The bill has passed a total of 33 legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions possessing 165 electoral votes—61% of the 270 electoral votes necessary to activate it http://www.NationalPopularVote.com http://www.NationalPopularVote.com