For The United States Republic, Your Vote Does Not Count In Elections, Unless You're

For The United States Republic, Your Vote Does Not Count In Elections, Unless You're in a swing state. That's right, its crazy that our system protects the minority, in the large rural states, instead of just going by the popular vote.

If we went by the popular vote, Kerry would have stopped all this a long time ago, but we're here now and this election, is slow but sure still.

So unless you're in Virginia, Ohio, Florida, and some other states that are considered swing this election, doesn't make sense to go to the polls.
This is primarily states like Texas, Alaska, California, New York, who are always red or blue no matter what

It not a democracy, since a republic protects the minority with the constitution, but the minority are very ignorant sometimes, like the wealthy or rural state populations, but that is the system any thoughts? .

 

What a dumb post.

So a State is not considered a swing State if it usually votes for one given party and polling indicates they will do so overwhelmingly again. However, if nobody votes for that party because their vote doesn't matter then it will swing the other way. Therefore your vote does matter

 

While a republic does protect the "minority", the majority in elections is handled by the electoral college system. More congressional districts (bigger state population) equal more electoral votes for that state. Smaller states equal less electoral votes. Most states it's a winner take all system. Maine and Nebraska do it proportionally. Voting for a candidate is important because they need the electoral votes to win (270). By not going to the polls you are in effect giving the "other" guy the vote (if he wins the state).

 

Which is precisely why I think every state in the Union needs to do it proportionally. Because while we should do our duty and vote, it is disheartening for a Republican in Vermont, or a Democrat in Wyoming to participate, because even if the final state popular vote were 49 to 51, the entire state would go to the winner. Silly and stupid, IMHO.

Of course a popular vote is as ridiculous, since then it makes no difference if someone in Wyoming or Vermont votes, since their populations are relatively small. The election would be won by votes from the major metropolitan regions where millions cast their ballots. Not exactly fair!

No, the electoral system is a great system - almost as good as the parliamentary system - but I do think every state should send proportional electoral votes in based on percentages.
Of course, I'd be interested in hearing arguments against the idea, since my logic may have a hole...

 

Greece and Italy have a parliamentary system.

 

The popular vote measures the individual vote, the electoral vote measures a deceptive proportional vote, from big states with no one in them but a few ignorant people.

If millions of people vote in a metro state, and a few hundred thousand farmers vote in a rural state, then the millions of individuals on principle alone, should decide the election.

States shouldn't be represented in presidential elections, look at the 2004 election? Four years were wasted under Bush, just to get back to a correction, corrections would be faster under a popular vote. It would be a refined measure too, because Mitt Romney even under the benefit of a popular vote, would still lose this election, much less under the less favorable rules presently in place by the college for new incumbents.

 

So what you are saying, then, is that the millions in metro states determine the course of this country, and farmers don't count for anything?

That's precisely the reason why the electoral system was put in place - to ensure that low-population states like Wyoming have a say in the vote.
Of course, since most of these are red states, I can see why Democrats oppose the idea - the majority of their support comes exactly from the high-population metropolitan areas.

If that were the case, I would seriously think that Wyoming, South Dakota, and others should just secede, since they no longer matter! Who cares about a bunch of yokel farmers who cain't read ann 'r jess chewin' 'bacci an' slingin' cow dung all day, eh?

The only major countries I've found in quick research who vote via straight popular vote seem to be Mexico, the Philippines, and South Africa - not exactly stellar examples of long-standing democracies!

I think my earlier post still makes the most sense. Representational electoral college votes based on popular vote - no more "winner take all" states allowed. The popular vote in each state doles out the electoral votes by percentage. Most electoral votes takes the POTUS.

Of course, the radical in me thinks the loser should be automatically VP. Guaranteed bi-partisan White House :-/

 

Most people in the country don't live in big rural farm states, yet they aren't represented, because the system gives more weight to land than people, in the voting process.

Elections should put more weight on the majority, not the minority, that is contrary to the whole idea of an election. The popular vote always decides which party is going to be President, in the next election, which is a clear sign that the system handicaps itself to appease the ignorant, who take long to catch up on favorable policy for the country.

Farmers have too much weight in their favor, and they don't know much about how the country is supposed to be run. All they want are farm subsidies, so they can get rich feeding us unhealthy foods, that increase our health care bills. And they aren't educated either, since farming does not require knowledge other than raising chicken and cows.