4 ms·

If you're in a safe state that's a different political leaning than you are, there isn't much incentive for you to vote. Your vote, for President anyway, is ef

If you're in a safe state that's a different political leaning than you are, there isn't much incentive for you to vote. Your vote, for President anyway, is effectively meaningless.

titanomachy 6y ago
That's true even if your state is the same political leaning as you. The only way to have a vote that matters is to live in a state which is split close to 50/50.
icegreentea2 6y ago
Right, but for all systems that isn't directly proportionate to popular vote (that means no geographic grouping of representatives), that's true. Parliamentary systems, and both American house of representatives suffer from this failure mode - it's not particular unique to the American presidential election. Finally, I would not defend the EC as a particularly good system, and certainly from a campaigner's standpoint, its particularly complex to navigate. But from an individual voter's standpoint, the mental model is simple. If you are in a swing state, you especially should vote. Parliamentary systems have concepts of "crucial ridings", which are quite similar.
- Gwypaas 6y ago
  You will never get it completely right but at least do something with a true grounding in math aiming for the most precise outcome. Every vote, in every election, should count for something and not only be a participation point on all other levels than local because you live in a gerrymandered district in Chicago. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster/Sainte-Lagu%C3%AB_method https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster/Sainte-Lagu%C3%AB_me...
  - AmericanChopper 6y ago
    Every vote in every election does count. The current selection of states that vote so consistently for one party is a trend that goes all the way back to... Bill Clinton’s election. It’s not anomalous in history at all, and you have no reason to believe that in the future California wouldn’t go back to being a sure bet for Republicans, and Texas a sure bet for Democrats. If a person thinks their vote doesn’t count because of the state they live in, they haven’t been failed by the electoral college, they’ve been failed by their own ignorance of history.
syshum 6y ago
I have always found it odd, and sadly commentary on the state of the nation that soo many people put so much weight on the office of president. It is become itself a title of nobility in a way something the founders opposed. With the consolidation of power, and congress' continual abjection of their responsibility to legislation (something BOTH parties are guilty of) and instead passing more and more power to the executive and courts the office of president and now the Supreme Court are considered more of a legislative body than the actual legislature. That is equal parts alarming and sad Ideally the president should be one of the least important races a person casts for vote for, not the most important

If you're in a safe state that's a different political leaning than you are, there isn't much incentive for you to vote. Your vote, for President anyway, is effectively meaningless.

titanomachy 6y ago

That's true even if your state is the same political leaning as you. The only way to have a vote that matters is to live in a state which is split close to 50/50.

icegreentea2 6y ago

Right, but for all systems that isn't directly proportionate to popular vote (that means no geographic grouping of representatives), that's true. Parliamentary systems, and both American house of representatives suffer from this failure mode - it's not particular unique to the American presidential election. Finally, I would not defend the EC as a particularly good system, and certainly from a campaigner's standpoint, its particularly complex to navigate. But from an individual voter's standpoint, the mental model is simple. If you are in a swing state, you especially should vote. Parliamentary systems have concepts of "crucial ridings", which are quite similar.

Gwypaas 6y ago
You will never get it completely right but at least do something with a true grounding in math aiming for the most precise outcome. Every vote, in every election, should count for something and not only be a participation point on all other levels than local because you live in a gerrymandered district in Chicago. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster/Sainte-Lagu%C3%AB_method https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster/Sainte-Lagu%C3%AB_me...
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  Every vote in every election does count. The current selection of states that vote so consistently for one party is a trend that goes all the way back to... Bill Clinton’s election. It’s not anomalous in history at all, and you have no reason to believe that in the future California wouldn’t go back to being a sure bet for Republicans, and Texas a sure bet for Democrats. If a person thinks their vote doesn’t count because of the state they live in, they haven’t been failed by the electoral college, they’ve been failed by their own ignorance of history.

syshum 6y ago

I have always found it odd, and sadly commentary on the state of the nation that soo many people put so much weight on the office of president. It is become itself a title of nobility in a way something the founders opposed. With the consolidation of power, and congress' continual abjection of their responsibility to legislation (something BOTH parties are guilty of) and instead passing more and more power to the executive and courts the office of president and now the Supreme Court are considered more of a legislative body than the actual legislature. That is equal parts alarming and sad Ideally the president should be one of the least important races a person casts for vote for, not the most important