Votes Matter ... or Do They?

[crfriend]

[Clinton will] basically be Obama's third term. I expect healthcare will continue to crumble as from the debate she seems to be perfectly fine with "Obamacare" and our "employer based - for profit system" *SPIT*

That'd be Dubya's fifth term, please, and it's "Romneycare" (for Mitt Romney), not "Obamacare". Let's at least try to get the history close. Like him or hate him, Obama's two terms have basically been an extension of the debacle that started in 2000. The US still have "Gitmo" and we still have the PATRIOT Act. 'Nuff said.

Sorry Carl, better luck next go round...

There isn't likely to be one. I think it'll be finished by 2020.

To Tor's questioning on whether this could turn to violent revolution, I'd posit that with the power of the modern police/surveillance state that is the USA this would simply not be possible today. Fifty years ago -- maybe even twenty, possibly, but not today. There's be no way to organise, and no matter how much firepower that the public has it cannot match what the military has (or even the para-civilian "police"), and don't think for an instant that the elites won't turn the military loose on the populace.

So once we weigh the historically proven fact that the popular vote doesn't matter, and when we consider how rigged our two party system is and the media that brainwashes the masses into thinking there is no other choice, then couple that with the issue that there really isn't anyone worth voting for this go round, than I am left to conclude that as far as this presidential election goes... no,

What still escapes many people is that the popular election in the USA is only a vague hint of whom should ascend the throne -- it's the Electoral College that makes the actual decision, and they are free after the first round to do any damned thing they see fit. The first round can still go any which way a well. This is why it's possible to have a President "elected" who lost the popular vote, and there exists historical precedent for it.

I believe local elections matter most!

Indeed, and that is where it can actually do some good. One of the "good old boys" from Massachusetts (Tip O'Neill) summed it up beautifully, "All politics is local."

I absolutely plan on voting. There are some interesting and important referendum questions on the upcoming ballot. However, I am still undecided whether I'll hold my nose and vote "for" the least of the evils on the Federal section or simply blank it. Blanks don't count as a "vote" but they are counted nonetheless and show up statistically; I'd like to see it where if more races went to "blank" than a candidate then the entire "election" process would have to be re-run with different candidates.

[Tor]

I doubt that a violent revolution consisting of an organized force would succeed, but from my reading those who think it might happen are of the opinion that there should absolutely not be that organized force to take down, and quite vocal about it. To (approximately) sum up in a few words how it might happen: Some "law", rule, edict, etc. will tip the balance point (very likely a mass gun confiscation), and the enforcers first and very quickly thereafter those issuing or passing down the orders will become targets, all the way up. With luck, just those folk and not their families. The only "organization" really required is that word of the "match set to petrol" be spread - something even the mass media might not be up to avoiding doing. After all, if it bleeds, it leads.

From my reading, the firepower situation in the US isn't so unbalanced as all that if you consider only that firepower which can be directed against no more than a house. Blowing up neighbourhoods to go after single people isn't going to win any support from the people, and they can't do without a measure of that. There is also the question of why the elites seem so interested in taking guns (or for some of them, just not rolling back the laws, and letting them go through when they can get away with it).

t's "Romneycare" (for Mitt Romney), not "Obamacare".

B-b-but there is a great play on the word with the latter that I haven't seen equalled with the former: Obummercare.

Unfortunately, the "None of the Above" option on ballots would show up how rotten the candidates are too clearly. I'd prefer that a "None of the Above" vote simply make the seat go unfilled. If that happens a second time, then obviously the seat wasn't important, and should be abolished. Enough NotA votes, and we might get the gummint's neb out of our lives, but that wouldn't do for the elites.

[Jim]

What still escapes many people is that the popular election in the USA is only a vague hint of whom should ascend the throne -- it's the Electoral College that makes the actual decision, and they are free after the first round to do any damned thing they see fit. The first round can still go any which way a well. This is why it's possible to have a President "elected" who lost the popular vote, and there exists historical precedent for it.

I believe the Electoral College should be eliminated. But this is not correct about the Electoral College being free after a first round. There is only one round, and if no one has a majority the election goes to the House of Representatives, where each state gets one vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_A ... nstitution

[crfriend]

But this is not correct about the Electoral College being free after a first round.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

However, the game is still rigged because the same forces that are operative at the Presidential level are also operative at the Congressional level -- i.e. everybody's pre-selected before the "election". If there's any doubt on that, look at the legislative success of laws that benefit the elite class in spite of all the "gridlock" that Congress is so well known for; the important stuff passes quietly with a handy majority and gridlock sets in for stuff that might benefit the general population.

[Judah14]

here is one adage that is true in elections around the world:
Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups.

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

Carl,

Before you spout any more of your conspiracy theories about how "the elites," whoever in the hell they may be, have rigged the system right through the election of the President in the House of Representatives, which has happened at least twice that I can think of, would you please read the US Constitution if for no other reason than you can stop embarrassing yourself from your lack of knowledge.

If the Electoral College can't give a majority vote to one of the candidates, it does go to the House of Representatives. However, each state delegation has ONE VOTE. So first each state delegation needs to decide who they're going to vote for then the body as a whole.

Yeah, our Founding Fathers were pretty creative.

Tor,

As far as abolishing the Electoral College goes, that proposal comes up every 4 years, without fail. The best argument I've heard for is the original rationale, so the smaller states (population-wise) don't get trampled by the larger states and we don't wind up with a tyranny of the majority. Every Presidential candidate goes to Iowa because it has the first caucus (don't ask how that process works, you don't want to know) and when they get there they get an earful about agricultural issues. If it didn't have as many Electoral Votes as it has, no one would care and the only states that would get any attention would be those with highly populated cities, such as New York, California, Illinois.

Are you sure you want to abolish the Electoral College and live in a country where only city dwellers' opinions matter?

To get back to the burning question, how did such a thoroughly unqualified, uncouth character as Donald Trump get so far and spend so little money getting there? Actually, it's simple: the Republicans front end loaded their primaries with winner take all elections. With more name recognition than anyone else running on the Republican side, of course he dominated the field. By the time journalists, pro and semi-pro, started cracking the Trump façade, it was too late, he had the nomination all but sewn up.

Despite all of the Establishment money behind Jeb Bush and other candidates. You see, dollars don't vote, people do.

[crfriend]

Before you spout any more of your conspiracy theories about how "the elites," whoever in the hell they may be, have rigged the system right through the election of the President in the House of Representatives, which has happened at least twice that I can think of, would you please read the US Constitution if for no other reason than you can stop embarrassing yourself from your lack of knowledge.

The above makes the assumption that the country is operating constitutionally; I submit that it is not, and hasn't for the better part of two decades.

I stood corrected on the matter with the Electoral College, and learned that the original system had problems so the Constitution had to get amended to "fix" the problem, and it's still got foibles. I'm not fond of the thing happening in the House of Representatives, although much more accepting of that tactic than having it done by the Supreme Court (which is what happened in 2000).

In principle, I agree with the notion of the Electoral College; it's an equaliser in much the same way as two senators from each state goes and does keep the more rural areas from "Tyranny of the Majority" which is rather heavily lopsided towards the big metropolitan areas. But with an utter lack of qualified -- never mind decent -- candidates it's nothing but noise. The point is that there is no choice on offer. Whether one dies by a thousand paper-cuts or gets incinerated in a nuclear fireball the net result is the same -- you're dead; what sort of choice is that? (Save that the latter gets it over with quicker.)

We'll see how it shakes out come November -- and how long it takes to work off the hangover.

[Jim]

One example of the Constitution not working as planned is the House. Gerrymandering has perverted the purpose of the House of Representatives, which was supposed to reflect the population. In 2012 the Democrats got more than a million votes more than the Republicans, but the Republicans still had a strong majority in the House.

[oldsalt1]

My understanding is that the electoral vote in each state is determined by the popular vote in that state. I have read the many comments from the members in this and a few other blogs on the subject. There are many different opinions as well as candidate selections. Its obvious from the discussions that the members have done their research . and are making their choices based on a reasonable level of knowledge
I don't believe in having only certain people being able to vote. BUT it is unfortunate that the results of the election and the fate of the country. is going to be determined, by voters who don't have a clue as to what is really going on, and are voting based solely on an emotional response to something they heard or saw the week before the election.

[Jim]

My understanding is that the electoral vote in each state is determined by the popular vote in that state.

Sort of. The electoral vote is the number of Senators plus Representatives. Representatives are determined by population; each state has two Senators. So each state has at least 3 votes. This gives a bit higher representation to states with a small population.

[crfriend]

Another interesting thing about the Electoral College is that in almost half the states (24) the electors are not compelled to vote the way the state's election played out (in 27 laws dictate that the electors must vote the way the popular vote went; the astute will notice that this yields 51 states -- DC counts as a state and gets 3 electors). Confusing matters even more, two states (Nebraska and Maine) allocate electors proportionally according to the way the popular vote went.

ThisNation.com has a decent write-up on the thing including this wonderful quip:

There are two primary reasons the Founders chose to select presidents via the electoral college instead of by direct, popular voting. The first reason was their lack of trust in the judgment of the people. They were fearful that a well-spoken but not well-intentioned individual could flatter the people and win their support. They hoped that a secondary body, such as the Electoral College, would not be susceptible to such attempts at manipulation. This reason for the Electoral College is virtually meaningless with changes that have "bound" electors to cast their votes for the candidate who wins the majority of the popular vote in each state.

(Does any of that sound familiar?)

The National Archives of the United States also have a good write-up on the process including the various restrictions on who the electors can vote for.

So, it could theoretically go any which way, at least among the chosen candidates in 24 states, and there are any number of places where "the fix" can go in. The only guaranteed loser this time around is going to be the general public.

[oldsalt1]

I would definitely be in favor of having all states allocate their electoral votes based on the popular vote within the states. Otherwise people like myself who are republicans in a democratic state NY have very little chance of their vote counting for anything.

[crfriend]

I would definitely be in favor of having all states allocate their electoral votes based on the popular vote within the states. Otherwise people like myself who are republicans in a democratic state NY have very little chance of their vote counting for anything.

If I'm reading this correctly, then you're in favour of proportionally allocating electors to one candidate or another based on the percentage of popular votes, much in the way that Maine and Nebraska do it.

I, too, like that idea, and not just because I think that the "winner-take-all" mentality is very deeply flawed -- it's just fairer. Some states -- and New York is certainly one -- has vast differences in interests, cultures, and needs, but yet is heavily dominated by the metropolis of New York City. (My state does similarly, but Massachusetts gets wagged by Boston not NYC.)

However, minor tweaks to the electoral system won't do a lick of good if all the candidates are pre-screened before the election happens. Step one would be removing unlimited amounts of money from the campaign cycle, and step two might be dramatically shortening the whole thing. A good third step would be to institute some form of useful and practical recall notion where it'd be at least theoretically possible to "undo a bad choice" (somewhat akin to trying to get rid of a hastily-gotten tattoo or terminating a pregnancy resulting from a bad decision). Of course none of those things are ever going to happen because the system as it is is working as designed. (See, "That's not a bug, that's a feature.")

[oldsalt1]

i agree with you shortening the process would be a great thing. I am sick of the constant flow of BS It never stops And depending on who wins I can see the November 9th program announcements on either Fox or CNN JOIN US TONIGHT FOR OUR COVERAGE OF THE 2020 election

[Tor]

Dave, I'm not sure how you got from what I wrote to thinking I was saying to abolish the Electoral College. Indeed, I see no reason why what I did suggest would require the abolition of the Electoral College.

That said, looking back, maybe a "better" choice would be for None of the Above to be an option, with an additional sub-option "Abolish the Post".

Nevertheless, I find the whole politics thing to be built on circular reasoning and claims that to not compute, such that I have to regard the matter with great scepticism even assuming saints are the politicians. It only gets worse with the crop currently planted in every country I know of.