Don't forget to vote!

[DLopez]

but with the electoral college, not every vote counts.

 

I'm sorry, but that's simply not correct. Every vote does count.

 

Regardless of the electoral college, all states require a simple majority to declare a winner for that state, and that majority could be by ONE vote.

 

One side wins, and one side loses. That is the democratic process. Be proud to participate in it.

[battousai16]

without getting into a political debate, as those are strictly forbidden, allow me to point out that i were to, say, vote for kerry, and my state voted bush, bush gets all the points, and now my vote dosen't help my candidate. thus, my vote dosen't count; not on the grand scale, anyway. and no one said i wasn't proud to participate in the democratic process. as DM pointed out, if i don't vote, i can't complain seriously, i have nothing against the democratic process, i just don't like the electoral porcess, and feel it strays from the "one man, one vote" ideal.

[Beiner]

As I was saying there is no point for electorates except for Maine and whatever teh other state is. They just resay teh concensous of that state.

 

and if it was a true democracy FY, there would be more then 2 plausible chopices. Look at france. They have tons of choics , they take the 2 with the most out of the first elecetion then the populas gets to vote soley on just those 2, much more democratic I'd say.

[DLopez]

Ya, I'm hoping this discussion isn't viewed as "political", but rather as educational about some basic government processes.

and if it was a true democracy FY, there would be more then 2 plausible chopices. Look at france. They have tons of choics , they take the 2 with the most out of the first elecetion then the populas gets to vote soley on just those 2, much more democratic I'd say.

 

Not on my ballot. My ballot listed Bush, Kerry, and Badnarik as presidential candidates.

 

Here, this site lists all the 3rd party and independant candidates running in the various states.

 

Choices? You want choices?

 

 

allow me to point out that i were to, say, vote for kerry, and my state voted bush, bush gets all the points, and now my vote dosen't help my candidate. thus, my vote dosen't count; not on the grand scale, anyway.

 

But that isn't etched in stone anywhere. Each state can change how they cast their electoral votes if they choose. For example, Nebraska and Maine have reserved the right to apportion their electoral votes based on the percentage of the popular vote each candidate receives in those states. In this election, Colorado had on their ballot a proposition to apportion their electoral votes in the future, but it was defeated - the people of Colorado didn't like that idea.

 

You do have to vote to change the system though.

[TheDevilAside]

Things aren't 100% the democratic way, because we aren't a 100% democracy. We're more of a 'representational democracy' or democratic republic. If we were a complete democracy, we would vote on Everything, but instead we elect people who we trust will represent our opinion and vote accordingly, for the most part.

 

Vote anyway. Your vote will help your candiate win the electoral points and the popular vote. That way, if your candidate wins (or won..) both, the other side won't have as much of an excuse to dispute the results and sue. I think that's really annoying.

 

Yeah, plus you can complain all you want and justify it. And who doesn't enjoy complaining? Speaking of... my cable connection sucks so bad!

[battousai16]

...i'm trying to figure out how to word this without stirring up political conversation...

 

and after trying long and hard, it can't be done.

 

as for the multiple choices... come on... nader didn't even get a full percent of the vote, did he? we don't really have more than 2.... they're more like a hypothetical addition to make the ballot look nice. y'know, "see ma? i cleaned my room, my bed is made!" when the rest of the room is a disaster... not the greatest analogy, i know, but it's late with ross perot having the record at 17%, i think we can all say that there are really 2 choices.

[47MartialMan]

...so before this gets closed....

 

if you don't vote i don't think you have a right to complain.

 

Does that imply to those that are not of age, but have their own mind and opinions? They can complain, it is their right.

 

And those that are of age, and don't vote. They can complain as well. They do not have to vote in order to voice their complaints. Perhaps one of the reasons they don't vote is that it is pointless to the fact that such both candidates, really did have great things to achieve. Thus they can complain about this as well.

 

And what of becoming a voter, thus you are tagged to serve jury duty that doesn't compensate your income? Would that be another complaint not to vote?

[47MartialMan]

without getting into a political debate, as those are strictly forbidden, allow me to point out that i were to, say, vote for kerry, and my state voted bush, bush gets all the points, and now my vote dosen't help my candidate. thus, my vote dosen't count; not on the grand scale, anyway. and no one said i wasn't proud to participate in the democratic process. as DM pointed out, if i don't vote, i can't complain seriously, i have nothing against the democratic process, i just don't like the electoral porcess, and feel it strays from the "one man, one vote" ideal.

Yes, remember how Bush "creeped in" the last time?

[Shorin Ryuu]

Yes, remember how Bush "creeped in" the last time?

 

Now, now, let's keep this neutral.

[DLopez]

as for the multiple choices... come on... nader didn't even get a full percent of the vote, did he? we don't really have more than 2.... they're more like a hypothetical addition to make the ballot look nice.

 

I don't see your logic. Three candidates is more than 2, no matter how you try to slice it.

 

Now, if you're just frustrated because there aren't more candidates THAT ESPOUSE YOUR VIEWPOINTS, then that is a completely different and extremely "political" argument, so we won't go there.