Does your vote count? Most here will agree that it does but does it really?
How valuable is a Republican vote in California? Or in New York?
What about Liberal in Texas or Alabama?
If you do not live in a swing state just how valuable is your vote going to be? Your state is already decided is it not? so is your vote even worth your effort? I am not talking about the civic responsibility here. We all agree on that, I'm talking about the relevance of your vote itself. Shouldn't your vote, even if you are a minority in your area(Aquilla ), count for something other than a statistic? Doesn't your impotence actually negate you as a participating citizen?

This topic was inspired by this article from BusinessWeek
http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/BusinessWeek/2004/06/14/481691

Considering the dominance of one of the 2 parties in so many states and the Gerrymandering effort of both parties.

Does your vote actually matter?

Do you believe the method by which we vote should be changed?

Does our voting system fairly represent the American people?

Since I live in Ohio, my vote is weighted as about 3 or 4 votes from a non-battleground state... I'll be sure to make it a quality vote.

To answer the questions, the entire US system is set up as a series of checks and balances. The Electoral College system is one of those checks and balances.

The needs, wants, and desires of different states are...different. Without the Electoral College system, candidates would be encouraged to campaign only in large population centers, since that's where the people are.

The smaller States' electoral votes are weighted a bit more heavy than the larger States. Therefore, even in battleground States, your vote counts a little heavier in a smaller State than a larger one.

Does your vote actually matter?
Of course it matters, even if you are in a solidly "Red" or "Blue" state. Not only does it send a message about your support for the candidate, it lets politicians know that you are actually paying attention.

Do you believe the method by which we vote should be changed?
No, I do not. Straight democracies have their own faults. Our system has worked fine for over 200 years, despite the disparate wants, needs, and desires of small States and large States, Northern States and Southern States and so on. It is a good system.

Does our voting system fairly represent the American people?
It depends on your definition of "Fair". Any system has flaws and will be inherently unfair to some portion of the population.

For example, let's say we switch to a straight "50% + 1" voting system for President. Couldn't the argument be made that anyone who voted for the losing candidate has been disenfranchised? Perhaps we should do away with the "all or nothing" system and go with a more parliamentary system. Maybe it's unfair to have 1 President: why not have 3?

You see how someone can always complain that the system is unfair. But every system is unfair to someone. Our system is a proven one, one that has stood the test of time and has worked through some very difficult times and through some very difficult compromises. I don't think we need to change it.

Yes, it does. I don't agree with Amlord often, so you'd better take notice. Participation is the only way we can effect change.
Maybe, but in the absence of a workable alternative, this is what we've got.

Gerrymandering does make things particularly frustrating, and someone is always going to be unhappy with the results. So far the country has survived the system's drawbacks, and messing with the system could easily make it worse.

My goodness, I agreed with Amlord again! Someone call a doctor!

If you don't vote, your opinion doesn't count.

Does my vote matter?

Well, some of my votes matter more than others. For example, my vote for our next state senator might matter. My vote for the next President will be a statistical anomaly in my state. In fact, we're so important to the Presidential campaigns that I haven't seen a single ad for EITHER Presidential candidate. There's no battleground here. Kerry has not even tried here. Nor has Bush for that matter. They're both fine with the status quo, which is to give this southern state's votes to the Republican nominee.

However, come November, I get to have LOTS of votes, including a vote to codify discrimination and bigotry in our state constitution, a vote for our new Senator, a vote for our new Representative, a vote for a few state and county positions. Some of those will count; others will not. Just depends on the race.

So I vote anyway. Even if the top of the ticket isn't a real race.

I think it is absurd to say that because I do not vote, my opinion does not count. My disenfranchisement does mean that I have no value to the republic. To the contrary, I believe it speaks volumes about a broken system. I suppose if I lived in Ohio I would have a rosier picture of the impact of my vote.

Perhaps our political system was set up as a system of checks and balances, but that balance has disappeared. You need not look further than the stacked courts and 2000 election to realize that the two political parties are running the entire show as they see fit.

I suppose I could take the advice of amf and vote local in order to have my voice heard. Well, coming from New York, I need not bother with the absurd state government that actually defies court orders to pass budgets by still adjourning session. New York State's government has become a joke on inactivity and bickering.

Does your vote actually matter?

Of course it does. Every vote matters. Hopefully my fellow democrats here in Pennsylvania agree with me. Because if too many start thinking this way then this state might actually vote for Bush.

Do you believe the method by which we vote should be changed?

Yes. It was designed to prevent a president from having a mandate from the people, and the incredible power he would thus weird with said mandate. Thank our lucky stars Bush didn't get a majority of the popular vote--that would be scary.

Does our voting system fairly represent the American people?

Yes, it does. The alternative would mean that the state's would, for the most part, not matter as much. The rural Republicans in my state would truly be disenfranchised.

Oh yes, your vote is about as useful as a car wash on a dirt road. The creators of the patriot act have made sure of that. I'm sure that evil Saddam will escape and meet Osama in the desert, where they will plot to destroy Disneyland. While Bush will continue to "conquer" more nations and to get more oil to feed our hungry american consumption. But we will be safe (aside from Disneyland) under the blanket of "Homeland Security". It doesn't matter that police checkpoints will screen your trips to the convenience store, or that "Martial Law" (Look up FEMA) will lockdown your neighborhood by 9pm. All that matters is that we are safe from these turban toting demons that we have come to fear (think David vs Goliath). Also, you might as well hand over your firearms to the ATF since we won't need them anymore. Hey, maybe they will let us wear the star of David on our clothes too!

So yes, your vote does count if you are still asleep...

I think what you describe was true when they set the system up, but isn't true anymore. I used to live in Montana--candidates may have dropped a few leaflets as they flew over, but that was about it as far as catering to our 'heavier' vote. Most big cities now are relatively united in their voting makeup--at least enough so for a candidate to know in advance which way they're likely to vote (think Kerry will spend much time in Dallas? or Bush in NYC?). Given this, I find that the reasons you state, Amlord, while once true no longer apply. Either with or without the EC, candidates will campaign where they can have best effect.



This is a very frustrating issue, because the solution seems so obvious--take voting district construction out of the hands of the politicians. I am completely amazed that it was ever set up that way to begin with--it's a conflict of interest. However, as PE states, the solution might be worse (who's to say how 'independent' an 'independent' commission might be?).

How my gosh, I agreed with PE? Whatever she had, it must be catching.

Well, of course your vote matters in theory and on an emotional level. If you're a democrat in Mississippi or a Republican in New York, however, your vote doesn't matter on a practical level.
I think we should switch to an instant-runoff vote. There's more info here. Essentially how it works, though, is you number your preferences for President (in this example) from first preference to last. The ballots are then counted, and if one of the candidates receives a majority of first-place votes, they win. If not, the last-place candidate (in a hypothetical three candidate race, say Nader) is eliminated and all the next-preference votes on his ballot are recounted and added to the vote totals. In this sytem, to my mind, there would be much less disenfranchisement, as an independent could cast their vote for Nader and still feel like they'd been heard if their second place vote got Kerry (hypothetical again) elected.

Cyan, all I am saying is that I don't think our votes count anymore. IMHO I believe this country was bought and sold a long time ago. It is actually surprising to me how many people still believe in the presidential election. As far as state and local elections are concerned that is a different ball game. Why? Because the shadow government at the top is controlling the things which matter most. This has been going on a long time. Look up aerial photographs of Washington DC and you will see that Masonic patterns are laid out.

So, does my vote matter? Not in my opinion.

Yes, I believe the method by which we vote should be changed to exclude the electoral college and be based directly on the population.

Does the voting system fairly represent the american people?

"I certainly hope not"


Thanks for allowing my post,
Happy Debating

Geez, Amlord, your defense of the electoral college is a perfect model for an argument in favor a progressive income tax system: the needs of different income brackets are... different, the tax penalty on the poor should be "weighted" accordingly. I'll have to bear this in mind for an appropriate thread.

I would also agree with you in general - as far as voting goes, anyway. I do have one recommendation for a change in the system, though (see below).

Does your vote actually matter?

The idealistic answer is "yes, every vote counts". The realistic answer is "it depends". One of the main reasons I'd argue that every vote counts is that, despite the decision of the Electoral College, the popular vote indicates the scope of an elected official's mandate. If a politician is elected in a landslide by an overwhelming majority, s/he can and should pursue their platform with as much rigor as possible. It is my belief, though, that a candidate who wins with a very slim majority - or indeed, no majority - should, as a "representative" of all the people - do their best to moderate some of their positions (while still adhering to the platform which got them enough electoral votes slip through) and genuinely try to be "a uniter, not a divider". They should definitely not push through an even more extreme agenda than the one on which they ran. Assuming, of course, that they have a conscience. Should John Kerry, for example, squeak by in the upcoming election, with enough electoral votes to make up for a slight shortfall in an overall majority, there would be no excuse for him to start appointing radical leftist judges, signing treaties which abrogate our sovereignty, and pushing liberal budgets and agendae through Congress. An informed electorate which cares about the system should never return such a candidate to office. If only we had one of those.

Another way in which every vote could count even more is outlined below. The reason I say "it depends", however, has a bit to do with the weighting of votes in the electoral college system - some votes being "more equal" than others. It also has to do with gerrymandering, which further skews the electoral weighting, as has been mentioned by others. Then, we must also factor in such things as fraud at the polls, deliberate disenfranchisement, and federal courts running roughshod over states rights in terms of changing electoral law mid-election - all of which we saw four years ago.

If christopher is asking whether my personal vote will count in the upcoming election, it's hard to say. I live in a battleground state with a large number of electoral votes, so it should be "more equal" than many other people's votes. As that state also happens to be Florida, though, it is anyone's guess. Jeb Bush is still governor, voting machines are still faulty (and some of the replacements more open to tampering), "felons" are still being purged, and there's still a conservative majority in the Supreme Court. Let me put it this way: the vote of a white Republican is much more likely to count (or be counted) here than the vote of a black Democrat - assuming the black Democrat is even allowed to vote in the first place. I'm a member of neither party and of mixed race, so I guess I have about a 50-50 chance.

Do you believe the method by which we vote should be changed?

Yes, I do. I don't think we should abandon the electoral college, but there is such a lack of "equal protection" in the diversity of voting methods within states and from state to state - both in terms of casting and counting - that I believe it is time for federal intervention. This is what the Supreme Court should have mandated in 2000. I believe we should return to paper ballots only and that they should be counted - by hand - by non-partisan (or, at least, politically diverse) election officials. If nothing else, this would prevent Fox News and MSNBC from calling the shots before the polls close.

This is our vote, people. It should count. There should be as little room for error and tampering and as much room for verification and certification as possible. So what if it takes a bit more time? This is the single most important way in which we participate in our government - and we are complacently allowing it to be taken away from us.

Further, the electoral college itself should be representative. A candidate who wins a state's poll by less than a .01% majority should not get all of that state's electors. If the electors of a state were proportional to the results of the election - or if they were determined by district - the theory of the electoral college and its weighting of the vote on a state by state basis would still hold - but it would be much more representative (which, I thought, was the whole point). It would also be weighted more fairly - and everyone's vote would count more. We would all live in battleground states. Should Bush get 40% of the vote in New York state, he should get 40% of their electors. Should Kerry get 25% of the vote in Texas, he should get 25% of their electors. How does this not make sense??

Does our voting system fairly represent the American people?

Not in the least. The electoral college, by automatically giving all of its votes to one candidate (in an overwhelming majority of states) defeats its own purpose. And a voting system which is fraught with faulty and discriminatory registration practices increasingly dominated by Diebold technology is way, way, way too open to error and fraud. Under such a system, none of us are being fairly represented.

Does your vote actually matter?

quoting njs6 - Thank our lucky stars Bush didn't get a majority of the popular vote--that would be scary.

quoting Amlord - Of course it matters, even if you are in a solidly "Red" or "Blue" state. Not only does it send a message about your support for the candidate, it lets politicians know that you are actually paying attention.

These two answers to the question of whether or not a vote for a losing candidate matters bring to mind a question I've sort of had for a while now.

President Bush leads "as if" he got a majority of the popular vote. I say that because a key part of his campaign is the idea that he makes the tough decisions based on his own convictions, not letting the public opinion polls influence his perceptions. He has expressed disdain for public opinion polls many times before and since his election in 2000.

This brings me to the quote from Amlord. If President Bush openly expresses distrust of public opinion polls, is there reason to believe he and his administration think about the popular vote totals from the 2000 election when making decisions?

Perhaps these are issues of style more than of actual policy? But, a President's dismissive attitude toward dissent, in terms of public presentation, may be detrimental to the quality of democracy - beyond turnout. If a voter gets the impression that the President pays little attention to opposition, why champion causes through protests, petition, or even simple acts like writing letters to the editor.

So, these are really exploratory questions even if they come off as statements, and it would be great to hear any thoughts.

I would go for paper ballots that can be read by an opitcal machine.
(I.E. something like the Computerized Muiltiple Chose Tests used to get into college.)
This way the votes can be quickly counted at first by the machine, and then counted by hand if need be.


Yes, lets get rid of the "Winner Take All System" of the Electorial College before consider getting rid of the elecotorial college itself.

Proportional representation for the electorial college is on the ballet in Codorado, and per-district system is in Maine. Also, Nebraska has also done away with the Winner take all system.


Even if all the states went to a propotional or district represntation in the electorial college, the votes will still be weighted. This might be the best of both worlds.

I'll say this again: Convince all the states to use the propotional or district reprentation of the Electorial College, and use that for a while before we concider throughing the Electorial System out.

Interesting exploratory questions, stuart - and worth, um, exploring - but they do stray from the topic at hand. Should you continue participating here, you will soon have the ability to start threads - and those questions could make an interesting one.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::


That could work - though there were problems here in 2000 with the settings on the optical scanners for overvotes. Those in Republican dominated counties were set to accept ballots with extraneous marks, those in Democrat-dominated counties were set to reject them (and the machines were pre-set by the governor's office before delivery) [The Best Democracy Money Can Buy by Greg Pallast] - some "equal protection", eh? We would also need to ensure that there is a uniform standard district by district - or we may never even know when a re-count is in order.


I knew there were a couple - thanks for doing the research. I'm all for state's rights in general - and in state and local elections, they can do as they please. But in national elections, I feel there should be a national standard - and it should be the most representational and most fool-proof possible. I think this change in the electoral voting system would be the best of both worlds. The problem with this being left to state referenda is that states with a clear majority in one party or the other - like Georgia or New York - will never go for it voluntarily. And states with a large majority of either party in their legislatures will never even propose it.

Actually, I have done the research awhile back for a college paper.

Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1:
Congress has clear authority in this area.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2:
But the electorial college is chosen by any method the states shall choose.

I was afraid I'd gotten off topic. I guess I could just answer the question. I don't think a vote for the electoral loser matters in our current political climate.

I don't think the winner is going to consider the absolute number/difference in votes between the two major parties when determining their course of action. This is how I interpreted Amlord's argument - that a blue vote in a red state sends a message of your lack of support for the eventual winner. A vote for the loser only means "I don't grant you a mandate" if the winner responds in kind, and Bush hasn't.

Since we basically know who is going to win most states, a counter-vote in these states doesn't matter.

I'm in Indiana, and I won't be voting for President Bush. This state has gone Republican every election since 1964. My vote, at best, can have symbolic meaning, but if the winner doesn't see/understand the symbol then my vote doesn't matter.

I will still vote, but I understand the urge not to.

I can understand your frustration, stuart. As I live in Florida, I will efinitely be casting a vote for the candidate who has the best chance of unseating him - which, unfortunately, is John Kerry.

Were I living in a state which was certain to go to one or another of the the two real contenders, I might make my vote count in another way: the vote-swapping idea from 2000. You could try casting your vote for the Libertarian or Green Party candidate to show support for third and fourth parties (or your lack of support for the two-party-only system). Then again, if you feel that John Kerry is absolutely the best man for job, go ahead and vote your conscience.

Most definitely, the electoral college is an archaic institution that only represents the founders distrust of the populace at large.

-Staten Island Democratic Association





No way-under our current system, the candidates spend time in states that have the most electoral votes. Why visit my state which has just five when you can go to Ohio, Illinois, or Texas and gain double-digit numbers of delegates? Getting rid of the system might encourage them to visit those of us out jhere in the boondocks.

I live in Florida and this is the first election in which I will be eligible to vote .

I don't think the debate should be focused on whether or not your vote counts, but rather on how much your vote counts. Obviously, voting is better then not voting. Pardon the redundant logic, but if you don't vote then your vote obviously counts for nothing.

Now the real fun begins when we get past the fact of voting/not voting to the idea of how much your vote counts. Others have already brought up the idea of votes in swing states counting more than a vote in a solid red or blue state (living in Florida, this especially applies).

Literally, this logic is faulty. Again, pardon for the obvious logic: one vote counts for one vote. However, due to demographics, it does almost seem futile to vote in states which are heavily blue or red. But I feel that this should not discourage those in heavily blue or red states to vote or to even "waste" their vote on a third party in an effort to protest the heavy-handedness or dominance of a party in their state. Demographics change, rapidly in some places and slowly in others. Not to mention, what kind of message does not voting send to those who seek to run in opposition to the dominant party? Many may think "Hey, my base doesn't even bother to vote because this area is hopelessly [blue/red], why should I run at all?" How can the status quo ever be changed if no one challenges it?

Finally, candidates and the party apparatus in your state/area may change. Even in states like California and and New York, the minority party can gain major concessions (Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former Mayor Rudy Guliani). This is due to a slight ideological shift within the specific candidates in order to appeal beyond their minority base. While the candidate may not be the ideal for the particular party, it does allow for more concessions or gains within the state in an effort to change the status quo; this being paramount as balance is needed in an effective republic.

In my humble, if not idealistic opinion, every vote counts. Vote not out of ignorance but out of intelligence. Vote on your conscience and your principles, what ever they may be.

To those of you who are voting for the first time, and those who aren't, take this seriously.

Signing off,
Burke

I would disagree with the notion that a vote is a vote and that "swing" voters do not have an advantage over those of us in areas of the country that are heavily dominated by one party. Yes, it is true that areas change over time, the south is a great example of this having gone through a hard-core democratic phase to a more republican tinge the last thirty years. In the future, my vote may count should demographics change, but as for the 2004 election, it does not count the same as someone in Ohio, Colorado, or Florida. Simply because my vote might swing my state in the future doesn't mean it is worth a darn now.