Preaching to the choir

Billnew · Jun 11, 2008

Since most people in this forum probably votes, I am preaching to the choir.

We need to get as many people to the polls as we can. 50% of the people eligable to vote do. Meaning that the last 3-4 Presidents have been elected by 24-26% of eligable voters.

We saw how important the elections in Iraq were to them. They risked thier lives to vote. But we in America, can't take the time to vote?

Democrat, Republican, Independant or whatever other label there is,
vote. This election is too important to sit out. We have major issues that our next president must address, and the candidates have never been so
clear on their paths of leadeship.

Keeping this off specifics, just encouraging everyone to get out and vote.

25% of the people, should not decide who is president.

We need a fair election and a clear winner.(no hanging or pregnant chads.)

FaithLikeARock · Jun 11, 2008

Maybe once we get a good candidate that number will rise? Or reeducate people on politics because a lot of the time the voters just have no clue whats going on. Last I check (I don't remember where I found this statistic) the group most likely to vote is 18-29. Maybe because they're fresh out of college or now they can vote and are excited for that chance? I have a feeling the biggest problem is that the ability to vote is nothing special anymore and so people don't feel obligated to do so.

JustOneWay · Jun 11, 2008

I predict that there will be more people who come out to vote democrat while more republicans stay home.

jayem · Jun 11, 2008

Billnew said:
Since most people in this forum probably votes, I am preaching to the choir.

We need to get as many people to the polls as we can. 50% of the people eligable to vote do. Meaning that the last 3-4 Presidents have been elected by 24-26% of eligable voters.

We saw how important the elections in Iraq were to them. They risked thier lives to vote. But we in America, can't take the time to vote?

Democrat, Republican, Independant or whatever other label there is,
vote. This election is too important to sit out. We have major issues that our next president must address, and the candidates have never been so
clear on their paths of leadeship.

Keeping this off specifics, just encouraging everyone to get out and vote.

25% of the people, should not decide who is president.

We need a fair election and a clear winner.(no hanging or pregnant chads.)

Agree 100%.

I hate to keep harping on the Electoral College, but your post provides another reason why it needs to go. The EC encourages the candidates to turn out the vote only in states that are competitive. For example, Pennsylvania could go either red or blue. Both parties will work hard to get their voters to the polls. Texas and Illinois are likely not competitive. Texas will go GOP. IL will go Demo. There's no incentive for either party to push for a high turnout. But if we elect the President by direct popular vote, then each candidate (even a 3rd or 4th party) benefits by campaigning in every state and working for as high a turnout as possible. No voter in any state can be ignored. A truly democratic election. That's how we should elect a President.

SummerMadness · Jun 11, 2008

I definitely think we need more voting, I am always annoyed seeing only ~50% of the populous voting. I would be in favor of making Election Day a national holiday so everyone has the entire day to vote. When I went to Columbia, they always had Election Day as a holiday, which was extra helpful as I was commuting there out of state and I needed to vote in a gubernatorial election one year.

eldermike · Jun 11, 2008

jayem said:
Agree 100%.

I hate to keep harping on the Electoral College, but your post provides another reason why it needs to go. The EC encourages the candidates to turn out the vote only in states that are competitive. For example, Pennsylvania could go either red or blue. Both parties will work hard to get their voters to the polls. Texas and Illinois are likely not competitive. Texas will go GOP. IL will go Demo. There's no incentive for either party to push for a high turnout. But if we elect the President by direct popular vote, then each candidate (even a 3rd or 4th party) benefits by campaigning in every state and working for as high a turnout as possible. No voter in any state can be ignored. A truly democratic election. That's how we should elect a President.

A couple of major cities could decide all elections without the EC in place. If you want to take all political power away from those outside major cities, if thats the goal, removing the EC is the way to go.

jayem · Jun 11, 2008

eldermike said:
A couple of major cities could decide all elections without the EC in place. If you want to take all political power away from those outside major cities, if thats the goal, removing the EC is the way to go.

Wrong. Just the opposite is true. The EC actually magnifies the effect of big population areas. Bear with me. A map of the 2004 election results by county demonstates this. John Kerry won most all of the large cities by sizable margins. Look at most of the big cities--NYC, LA, Chicago, Detroit, Seattle, Washington DC, Philly, Cleveland, Miami, Dallas, San Francisco--all blue. But because he lost most of the smaller states and rural areas, also by sizable margins, he lost the total popular vote by 3,000,000.

Winning the large population centers did NOT gain him a popular vote majority nationwide. But it did give him majorities in 19 individual states. He won 256 electoral votes. If he'd won Ohio, he'd be President. The EC made him MORE competitive than he would have been if we elected a President by direct popular vote.

Another example: Look at Michigan. Kerry won only 12 of 80+ counties. Of course, he won overwhelmingly in Wayne County. That gave him about 2.4 million votes statewide, to Bush's 2.3 million. So he got ALL of Michigan's electoral votes. Which means Bush's 2.3 million votes essentially counted for nothing.

In actual practice, just the opposite of what you posted is true. The EC gives a candidate a BETTER chance of being President by only winning the big cities. It makes him more likely to carry the state, and win all of that state's electoral votes. The EC diminishes the importance of small state and rural votes.

eldermike · Jun 11, 2008

jayem said:
Wrong. Just the opposite is true. The EC actually magnifies the effect of big population areas. Bear with me. A map of the 2004 election results by county demonstates this. John Kerry won most all of the large cities by sizable margins. Look at most of the big cities--NYC, LA, Chicago, Detroit, Seattle, Washington DC, Philly, Cleveland, Miami, Dallas, San Francisco--all blue. But because he lost most of the smaller states and rural areas, also by sizable margins, he lost the total popular vote by 3,000,000.

Winning the large population centers did NOT gain him a popular vote majority nationwide. But it did give him majorities in 19 individual states. He won 256 electoral votes. If he'd won Ohio, he'd be President. The EC made him MORE competitive than he would have been if we elected a President by direct popular vote.

Another example: Look at Michigan. Kerry won only 12 of 80+ counties. Of course, he won overwhelmingly in Wayne County. That gave him about 2.4 million votes statewide, to Bush's 2.3 million. So he got ALL of Michigan's electoral votes. Which means Bush's 2.3 million votes essentially counted for nothing.

In actual practice, just the opposite of what you posted is true. The EC gives a candidate a BETTER chance of being President by only winning the big cities. It makes him more likely to carry the state, and win all of that state's electoral votes. The EC diminishes the importance of small state and rural votes.

The dems hold your view, they have 2 presidents in 30 years. The repubs disagree. why?

Lanakila · Jun 11, 2008

Billnew said:
Since most people in this forum probably votes, I am preaching to the choir.

We need to get as many people to the polls as we can. 50% of the people eligable to vote do. Meaning that the last 3-4 Presidents have been elected by 24-26% of eligable voters.

We saw how important the elections in Iraq were to them. They risked thier lives to vote. But we in America, can't take the time to vote?

Democrat, Republican, Independant or whatever other label there is,
vote. This election is too important to sit out. We have major issues that our next president must address, and the candidates have never been so
clear on their paths of leadeship.

Keeping this off specifics, just encouraging everyone to get out and vote.

25% of the people, should not decide who is president.

We need a fair election and a clear winner.(no hanging or pregnant chads.)

Sometimes it just feels like your one vote doesn't count for anything. At this point I'm undecided in the presidential election.

Autumnleaf · Jun 11, 2008

To vote for either candidate who I don't like I would have to go out of my way for around 20 to 30 minutes. Since I think McCain and Obama are both equally poor choices why should I waste my time to help either one of them or to vote for another candidate who has nil chance of getting elected?

jayem · Jun 11, 2008

eldermike said:
The dems hold your view, they have 2 presidents in 30 years. The repubs disagree. why?

I've never heard of eliminating the EC suggested by either Democrat or Republican. The EC favors the two party hegemony and makes it almost impossible for a third party candidate to win. That's why it still exists. But the current demographics clearly favor the Democrats. I think it very possible that this year, BO could carry enough urban areas, by large enough margins, in enough big states, that he'll get the 270 electoral votes, even while losing all the rest of the country. And I hope that will wake people up as to how knuckleheaded is the way we elect a President.

Loudmouth · Jun 11, 2008

FaithLikeARock said:
Maybe once we get a good candidate that number will rise?

I hear many people say this, and I don't blame them. I can completely understand why people feel that none of the candidates are looking out for them.

But what if these people went to the polls and didn't enter a vote for president, or any votes at all other than checking in. Just check off your name and hand over a blank ballot. If 200 million people go to the polls but only 100 million vote for a presidential candidate I think politicians would open their eyes a bit. It may even lead to a viable third party that would go after these votes.

We also need to stop treating presidential elections like horse races. You don't go to the polls to pick a winner. You go to the polls to pick people that best represent you the citizen. If that means voting for a write-in candidate then do it.

I have a feeling the biggest problem is that the ability to vote is nothing special anymore and so people don't feel obligated to do so.

It could also be said that the internet is more empowering than voting. Which has more of an effect? A successful political blog or a single vote?

Billnew · Jun 12, 2008

JustOneWay said:
I predict that there will be more people who come out to vote democrat while more republicans stay home.

I don't know. It seems no one is happy with the choices, so the only incentive would be to vote for "change". So you might be right. Even if they don't know what "change" means.

Lanakila said:
Sometimes it just feels like your one vote doesn't count for anything. At this point I'm undecided in the presidential election.

I can understand this. But this election is the most important election since I have been able to vote. Our economy is stagnant, we need leadership to finish the wars, we need to continue to increase our border security.
Clearly we don't need to continue Bush's path, but whose change will help, and whose change will make the country worse?
This isn't an election of continuing Bush's plans, versus Obama. Its McCains change versus Obama's change.
I don't want to turn this into a debate on any one politician, but to debate actually voting.

I would be far happier, with 60-70% of the people voting, even if it means my choice isn't elected. I want more people deciding who runs our country. In Nazi Germany, 10% of the people were Nazi's, our country is
elected by 25% of the country, and one majority is probably extremist in their views(leftist or rightist). Which we don't need an extremest(either way) to run our country.

Yes the EC does limit your vote. But this year, your State could be the Florida(2000) or Ohio(2004) of this election year. Where a few thousand votes could make the difference.

EC does make 3rd party candidates very restricted. Perot showed us this.
He earned some EC votes, and the EC switched their votes to another main party candidate.
I do believe the EC does help keep the big citys and states from getting all the attention of candidates. Example: New Yorks millions of voters only count a percentage of the Presidents EC votes. Otherwise, the millions of voters could be a vast pool of votes that the canddiates would strive for.

I would support a bill to make one person one vote for President, like every other elected official is elected. But I doubt it will happen. It would allow all partys the chance to be president.

Lanakila · Jun 12, 2008

Being in Montana my state doesn't have a large population and I live in a blue city in a mostly red state. The things that count to Montanans haven't been mentioned by either candidate as far as I can tell. Is Obama for gun control? If so and that view gets out very few Montanans will vote for him. If he's got the environmentalists in his pocket our city will vote for him but the rest of the state will not. He won over Hillary here but not by a large margin and this was one of the last two primaries.

Lanakila · Jun 12, 2008

I think the primary/caucus mess needs to be straightened out or many will give up on both the rep and the dem parties. Hillary won the popular vote but only because of the Michigan and Florida votes.

If you are a republican in a very blue state it can feel like your vote doesn't count and visa versa. Plus with the election results already being shown from the east coast long before our polls are closed it can make persons out west or in Hawaii stay home because it's already decided.

platzapS · Jun 12, 2008

I get to vote for the first time ever this year. I'm really really excited about it, and I plan to research the ballot and find out who I like (and what referendum issues I'm for) so I can go into the booth confident and informed. I'll try to bring my friends along too.

eldermike · Jun 12, 2008

jayem said:
I've never heard of eliminating the EC suggested by either Democrat or Republican. The EC favors the two party hegemony and makes it almost impossible for a third party candidate to win. That's why it still exists. But the current demographics clearly favor the Democrats. I think it very possible that this year, BO could carry enough urban areas, by large enough margins, in enough big states, that he'll get the 270 electoral votes, even while losing all the rest of the country. And I hope that will wake people up as to how knuckleheaded is the way we elect a President.

http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php
This is a good article on the EC and the conclusion is correct IMO.
The EC today solves a set of problems that were unseen at the time it was created by our founding fathers which to me shows a higher power than man in it's creation.

NeTrips · Jun 12, 2008

How about revamping the entire process. No primaries. No indication of party affiliation or offices held on the ballot. Social security card and government issued photo ID required to vote. One election on the same day across the country. One version of the ballot for the nation. Polls open for the same 24 hour period regardless of timezone. Lawfully prevent any media coverage of polls or results while the polls are open. Highest number of individual votes takes all. Second highest is VP.

eldermike · Jun 12, 2008

NeTrips said:
How about revamping the entire process. No primaries. No indication of party affiliation or offices held on the ballot. Social security card and government issued photo ID required to vote. One election on the same day across the country. One version of the ballot for the nation. Polls open for the same 24 hour period regardless of timezone. Lawfully prevent any media coverage of polls or results while the polls are open. Highest number of individual votes takes all. Second highest is VP.

At the begining we were a nation of farmers, cities were growing but rual life was the way for most people. The industrial revolution changed all that. Cities have governments and the best politics is local politics, issues within cities need to be handled by cities. Do away with the EC and city governments will become more or less part of the federal government. Politicians today make promises to people they can't keep and we don't call them on it becuase the ones that know they can't keep them see it as politics and the ones that have no clue how things work just think they have sold out.

The system we have today solves a problem that was unseen and unknown from the begining. Imagine that.........

We don't have a problem to solve here. People who don't vote have made a choice. We don't need a system that brings people who have no idea how we got here to the ballot box, that's not going to improve anything.

Billnew · Jun 13, 2008

platzapS said:
I get to vote for the first time ever this year. I'm really really excited about it, and I plan to research the ballot and find out who I like (and what referendum issues I'm for) so I can go into the booth confident and informed. I'll try to bring my friends along too.

That is all we ask.

NeTrips said:
Highest number of individual votes takes all. Second highest is VP.

I don't have a problem except with this.
There will be no benefit to have 2 people that can't work together. The Vp would be constantly cutting down the preisident, and we would have the same bickering we have in Congress in the White house. Of course the President could sign any bill he wishes since the President allows the VP to handle some issues, but the Vp really has no authority until the President is incapacitated or killed.

If someone is thinking third party, I support your vote. I don't believe they have a chance, but I support your vote. So long as we get as many
involved people voting.(not just pulling a random vote for someone they don't know.)

Preaching to the choir

Legend

Let the human mind loose.

:)

Naturalist

Senior Veteran

Pray

Naturalist

Pray

Not responsible for the changes here.

Legend

Naturalist

Contributor

Legend

Not responsible for the changes here.

Not responsible for the changes here.

Expanding Mind

Pray

Well-Known Member

Pray

Legend

Similar threads