5 ms·

> The electoral college bothers me. It shouldn't. > If you're reading this from California or Texas, yours simply doesn't. This is patently false. You only t

by maratd 14y ago

> The electoral college bothers me. It shouldn't. > If you're reading this from California or Texas, yours simply doesn't. This is patently false. You only think this way because you were told to. This is a fine opportunity for those who don't live in a "battleground" state to really vote for the guy they want to. There are many presidential contenders, and regardless of your beliefs, you will find someone who fits them much more closely if you simply look. You can vote for Romney or Obama, but I know you'll walk out of that polling place feeling dirty. I'll walk out of mine knowing that I voted for the guy I really wanted to vote for and didn't shoot myself in the foot doing so. If enough people realize this and do this, you'll get a much more dynamic political system and you'll send a very clear message to both the Republican and Democrat party. > I would imagine that if we abolished the electoral college we might see 80%+ turnout in smaller states The only places that see that kind of turnout are 3rd world countries where everything has gone to shit. They need to go out and vote or things will just get worse for them. You will never see that kind of turnout in any Western country.

tokenadult 14y ago
This is a fine opportunity for those who don't live in a "battleground" state to really vote for the guy they want to. Yes, quite a few states are sure things for one major party candidate or the other, and those of us who live in "safe" states like that can vote for anyone we please without undue worry about actually influencing the election result. My state (Minnesota) has cast its Electoral College votes for the candidate of the same major party for as long as I have been able to vote (more consistently than any other state in the country). Minnesota has fairly reasonable ballot-access laws, so there are ten different presidential candidates on the Minnesota ballot. There is also a third party that is a "major party" for purposes of Minnesota law, and that party is running a United States Senate candidate this year. I have a lot of choices here. Over the years, I have split my ticket when voting such that I have till not voted for candidates from six different political parties. I will be splitting my ticket again this year.
genwin 14y ago
> There are many presidential contenders, and regardless of your beliefs, you will find someone who fits them much more closely if you simply look. But the way our system works, voting for a third-party contender is effectively a vote for your least-favorite major party contender.
mturmon 14y ago
I fail to see why voting for someone who you already know will not win is a satisfying experience, especially when repeated year after year. You seem to be using extravagant rhetoric ("patently false", "send a very clear message") to justify your ideas, rather than thinking realistically about the presidential electoral system. The RNC and DNC are not losing sleep over third-party presidential voters -- as we all can see, they're focusing on spending hundreds of millions of dollars elsewhere. Only for a very few fleeting times in the country's recent history have third parties had influence at the presidential level other than as spoilers or cult-of-personality gadflies (Nader, Perot). There are overwhelming structural impediments to third party presidents.
- maratd 14y ago
  > I fail to see why voting for someone who you already know will not win is a satisfying experience Because it has lasting consequences. Those numbers are counted. They are poured over by the major parties and those votes affect the platform of the major parties in the years to come. Want to really make a difference? Vote your own beliefs. > Only for a very few fleeting times in the country's recent history have third parties had influence at the presidential level other than as spoilers or cult-of-personality gadflies (Nader, Perot). If you're going to restrict yourself to recent history, then even a few occurrences are significant. Regardless of what you think of Perot or Nader, they did affect the platforms of the major parties in the years after. If you're not going to restrict yourself to recent history, you should realize that the Republican party was a third party when it got started. It had one overriding issue it was pushing at the time, the abolition of slavery. As a result of its success, the Whig party completely collapsed.
  - CWuestefeld 14y ago
    Certainly I can't influence this election from where I vote in New Jersey. But maybe my vote today will influence the next one. (I'm going to throw out the pretense of being unbiased, because it's easier to write honestly. But feel free to replace my favorite candidate according to your conscience.) There are many people who believe that the GOP has turned its back on its core principles; indeed, the Tea Party was a pretty strong demonstration of that. Yet the party persists on playing the same old political games despite these loud voices. So the people need to speak in even louder terms to make them hear. I harbor few illusions that my vote will put Gary Johnson in the White House. But I do hope that when all the votes are counted, the GOP will say, "if all those votes for Gary Johnson had instead gone to our candidate, we would have won". If that were to happen, then I think there would be a strong incentive next time around for them to choose a candidate and platform that would be more palatable to those votes they lost to Johnson.

by maratd 14y ago

tokenadult 14y ago

This is a fine opportunity for those who don't live in a "battleground" state to really vote for the guy they want to. Yes, quite a few states are sure things for one major party candidate or the other, and those of us who live in "safe" states like that can vote for anyone we please without undue worry about actually influencing the election result. My state (Minnesota) has cast its Electoral College votes for the candidate of the same major party for as long as I have been able to vote (more consistently than any other state in the country). Minnesota has fairly reasonable ballot-access laws, so there are ten different presidential candidates on the Minnesota ballot. There is also a third party that is a "major party" for purposes of Minnesota law, and that party is running a United States Senate candidate this year. I have a lot of choices here. Over the years, I have split my ticket when voting such that I have till not voted for candidates from six different political parties. I will be splitting my ticket again this year.

genwin 14y ago

> There are many presidential contenders, and regardless of your beliefs, you will find someone who fits them much more closely if you simply look. But the way our system works, voting for a third-party contender is effectively a vote for your least-favorite major party contender.

mturmon 14y ago

I fail to see why voting for someone who you already know will not win is a satisfying experience, especially when repeated year after year. You seem to be using extravagant rhetoric ("patently false", "send a very clear message") to justify your ideas, rather than thinking realistically about the presidential electoral system. The RNC and DNC are not losing sleep over third-party presidential voters -- as we all can see, they're focusing on spending hundreds of millions of dollars elsewhere. Only for a very few fleeting times in the country's recent history have third parties had influence at the presidential level other than as spoilers or cult-of-personality gadflies (Nader, Perot). There are overwhelming structural impediments to third party presidents.

maratd 14y ago
> I fail to see why voting for someone who you already know will not win is a satisfying experience Because it has lasting consequences. Those numbers are counted. They are poured over by the major parties and those votes affect the platform of the major parties in the years to come. Want to really make a difference? Vote your own beliefs. > Only for a very few fleeting times in the country's recent history have third parties had influence at the presidential level other than as spoilers or cult-of-personality gadflies (Nader, Perot). If you're going to restrict yourself to recent history, then even a few occurrences are significant. Regardless of what you think of Perot or Nader, they did affect the platforms of the major parties in the years after. If you're not going to restrict yourself to recent history, you should realize that the Republican party was a third party when it got started. It had one overriding issue it was pushing at the time, the abolition of slavery. As a result of its success, the Whig party completely collapsed.
- CWuestefeld 14y ago
  Certainly I can't influence this election from where I vote in New Jersey. But maybe my vote today will influence the next one. (I'm going to throw out the pretense of being unbiased, because it's easier to write honestly. But feel free to replace my favorite candidate according to your conscience.) There are many people who believe that the GOP has turned its back on its core principles; indeed, the Tea Party was a pretty strong demonstration of that. Yet the party persists on playing the same old political games despite these loud voices. So the people need to speak in even louder terms to make them hear. I harbor few illusions that my vote will put Gary Johnson in the White House. But I do hope that when all the votes are counted, the GOP will say, "if all those votes for Gary Johnson had instead gone to our candidate, we would have won". If that were to happen, then I think there would be a strong incentive next time around for them to choose a candidate and platform that would be more palatable to those votes they lost to Johnson.