Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's more than just the national vote. I live in a small city of some 72,000. Only 1300 came out to vote in a recent election for the school budget. Forget federal taxes, our property taxes are out of control and the bulk of that goes to the school district. Yet people make no effort to go out and vote for the thing they complain about all year long. Ridiculous.
Bet 1000 of the 1300 probably worked for the schools. That is the way it works in the district i live in.
Does it bother you that our Presidential Elections are determined by roughly 10% of the population of the United States?.....
No. I'm not a big get-out-the-vote guy. A large portion of the people have no idea what the issues might be and are not in tune with world or national events enough for them to make an informed judgement - those people just follow the herd or family tradition or personal interest. They should stay home.
Bill Clinton won in 1992 with 45 million votes (43%).
Richard Nixon won with 47 million (61%) in 1972.
The modern era of politics started with McKinley in 1896, in my opinion. The Republicans poured money into that election and then got Teddy Roosevelt installed as VP in order to shut Teddy up about wages and such. Worked well until someone shot McKinley.
We've been manipulated ever since.
Largest percentage ever?..........Lyndon Johnson, 1968, with 61.05% of the popular vote.
So, no. In fact, I'd be happier if more people stayed home.
Let's keep in mind that everyone in the US does not qualify to vote. Only about 40% of Hispanics qualify for "obvious" reasons. Children can't vote.
It doesn't bother me at all as long as everyone that is qualified to vote has the right to vote and no one cheats. Obviously, dead people voting should be a red flag and if that is found in a precinct, they should be under investigation.
Good for you Kat. That's awesome. And thanks for the mature and thoughtful response (it's hard to find a lot of those here). Unfortunately, that only partially solves the problem but it's certainly a start. For the life of me, I have no idea why anyone would be against a popular vote system. That alone would get more people to vote. I know people on both sides of the aisle that don't even bother because they are so disillusioned by the system in our country.
I would not be so quick to toss out the electoral college. It does have a purpose in a democratic republic like the United STATES of America. Some tweakage of the electoral vote system might be in order.
Does it bother you that our Presidential Elections are determined by roughly 10% of the population of the United States?.....
No. I'm not a big get-out-the-vote guy. A large portion of the people have no idea what the issues might be and are not in tune with world or national events enough for them to make an informed judgement - those people just follow the herd or family tradition or personal interest. They should stay home.
I agree with you. If someone can't even take the time to research a candidate or watch a debate then they shouldn't be voting at all. Ignorant voters are dangerous.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,369 posts, read 54,596,563 times
Reputation: 40841
Quote:
Originally Posted by GearHeadDave
I would not be so quick to toss out the electoral college. It does have a purpose in a democratic republic like the United STATES of America. Some tweakage of the electoral vote system might be in order.
And what makes it allegedly better than a true 'one man, one vote' democracy?
The amount of people in the state is not indicative of the amount of people who vote. For example, only 126 million people voted in the 2012 election (that's the entire country). In 2012, the number of swing states were 8 made up of Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin. And according to CNN, that population was 56.6 million (obviously with a pretty good percentage that don't vote).
So doing the math 126 million over 320 equals roughly 39%. 39% of your 60 million is 23 million. I predicted 30-35 million so I spotted you a little.
I vote in a non-competitive state where Hillary will win by 1 million+ votes. Doesn't bother me at all. I'll vote 3rd party again without worrying about my vote deciding between the devil I know, Clinton, or the devil I don't know, Trump.
No it isn't 30-35 million.
Florida has 20+ million, Ohio has 11 million, Pennsyvania has 10+ million and those are only three battle ground states add the rest and it is well over 60 million votes. Plus Battleground states tend to be more populous than the average state (6 million for an average state)
YES +1; and Hillary probably lies but Trump never stops lying.
People may have more schooling these days, more educated, I wonder?
At least minorities and women can vote now. Not just property owning white men.
Agree and I wonder too
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockside
It's more than just the national vote. I live in a small city of some 72,000. Only 1300 came out to vote in a recent election for the school budget.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss
First of all everyone needs to vote. The premise of the OP is your vote is wasted. No your vote is important. You are voting for more than one person or one position on the ballot.
If either of you had thoroughly read the original post, you would have noted that I said "Of course, if there are local issues of interest, then by all means, you should vote." However, if you are not in a battleground state, than your vote is indeed wasted if all you're doing is voting for the Presidential Election
Quote:
Originally Posted by GearHeadDave
I would not be so quick to toss out the electoral college. It does have a purpose in a democratic republic like the United STATES of America. Some tweakage of the electoral vote system might be in order.
Yes Dave, what makes it better than one person, one vote. If a state has 70% of its population vote for one candidate, why does that candidate get 100% of the vote instead of a 70/30 split?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacanegro
YES +1; and Hillary probably lies but Trump never stops lying.
YES +1 to a flawed comment. OK, if you say so
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chance and Change
People voting is what makes the decisions. "Period"
Of course. 10% make the decision for 100%. Just as I stated.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
