voter apathy
This old rant doesn't really apply anymore, but I spent too much time on it, so here it is behind a
Nick's all about your vote not counting and everything due to the electoral college, and I've been trying to explain to him how it's set up, but I just realized I've fallen victim to the same confusion that he has. Last election I was pissed when Bush won "without" the popular vote, but I was looking at it from a partisan viewpoint: my candidate didn't win. By forgetting personal loyalties and looking at the set up, you can more easily grasp how the system works:
For the electoral vote:
1. People vote
2. Votes are tallied by district, then added up by the state
3. The electoral college (11 people in the state of VA) press the eleven buttons that correspond whoever wins the most votes in the state.
Meaning if the majority of citizens in that state voted Dem, Dems get 11 electoral votes. If the majority of people voted Rep. (as they tend to do here) then GW gets 11 votes.
The decision is not theirs to make as to who they vote for because they are delegates.
4. The ellectoral votes are tallied and hey presto there's your president.
Now for the popular vote:
1. People vote
2. The votes are tallied *nationally*
Can you point out the step missing in equation two? Because the electoral college of a state votes for whoever wins the state, all votes for that state go toward one candidate. It's stupid, yes, and creates target areas like Pennslychusetts, but the difference between the popular vote and the ellectoral vote in 2000 didn't have to do with corruption of the electoral college, it had to do with the way the votes are tallied.
If you want to fix the situation, you're not going to do it by getting rid of the college. It was put there by the constitution as a check of the legislative branch: basically, if a citizen picks a stupid choice, the delegate can call them on being uninformed (and thus preventing "Mickey Mouse" or "Obi Wan" from becoming president).
The best way to have the most democratic election would be to allow states to split their ticket. If the electoral college voted by district, which the delegates represent in Congress anyway, the turnout would mirror the popular vote much closer than it does now. A few states have already adopted the idea. Of course there are set backs to this, some laws would have to be passed against gerrymandering. I'd like to think that our votes could just be tallied like it is for the popular vote, but I'm afraid of what would happen if the presidental election became a race for popularity. (haha.) For the most part it'd result in too much confusion.
Anyway, the point is each vote still counts, once it's in. Whether or not you can get access to the polls is another story for another excedrine headache kind of day.
Nick's all about your vote not counting and everything due to the electoral college, and I've been trying to explain to him how it's set up, but I just realized I've fallen victim to the same confusion that he has. Last election I was pissed when Bush won "without" the popular vote, but I was looking at it from a partisan viewpoint: my candidate didn't win. By forgetting personal loyalties and looking at the set up, you can more easily grasp how the system works:
For the electoral vote:
1. People vote
2. Votes are tallied by district, then added up by the state
3. The electoral college (11 people in the state of VA) press the eleven buttons that correspond whoever wins the most votes in the state.
Meaning if the majority of citizens in that state voted Dem, Dems get 11 electoral votes. If the majority of people voted Rep. (as they tend to do here) then GW gets 11 votes.
The decision is not theirs to make as to who they vote for because they are delegates.
4. The ellectoral votes are tallied and hey presto there's your president.
Now for the popular vote:
1. People vote
2. The votes are tallied *nationally*
Can you point out the step missing in equation two? Because the electoral college of a state votes for whoever wins the state, all votes for that state go toward one candidate. It's stupid, yes, and creates target areas like Pennslychusetts, but the difference between the popular vote and the ellectoral vote in 2000 didn't have to do with corruption of the electoral college, it had to do with the way the votes are tallied.
If you want to fix the situation, you're not going to do it by getting rid of the college. It was put there by the constitution as a check of the legislative branch: basically, if a citizen picks a stupid choice, the delegate can call them on being uninformed (and thus preventing "Mickey Mouse" or "Obi Wan" from becoming president).
The best way to have the most democratic election would be to allow states to split their ticket. If the electoral college voted by district, which the delegates represent in Congress anyway, the turnout would mirror the popular vote much closer than it does now. A few states have already adopted the idea. Of course there are set backs to this, some laws would have to be passed against gerrymandering. I'd like to think that our votes could just be tallied like it is for the popular vote, but I'm afraid of what would happen if the presidental election became a race for popularity. (haha.) For the most part it'd result in too much confusion.
Anyway, the point is each vote still counts, once it's in. Whether or not you can get access to the polls is another story for another excedrine headache kind of day.