Voting when you're not in a battleground state, district, etc. is stupid

SpicyMcVoodoo · 10-22-2006, 05:19 PM

What is the point of voting when you're virtually assured your vote won't matter? Some would say, well, if everyone thought like that, then nothing would change. But that's not true. You know through polls with a high degree of certainty whether your vote will matter before a given election. Once you've discovered through polling that your vote will matter, then go ahead and vote. That way you don't waste time casting ineffectual votes, and you also don't cede power because you've taken yourself out of the voting game completely.

What am I missing?

7960 · 10-22-2006, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

What am I missing?

Nothing.

Don't vote.

motivez · 10-22-2006, 10:33 PM

So many people thinking that is the reason the Presidential election is essentially determined by 20ish percent of the country.. whichever gets the larger turnout of the 40% that vote in the US.

Granted, in this last case it was nearly 61%.. so Whoever got the most of the 30%.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 10-23-2006, 12:02 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

So many people thinking that is the reason the Presidential election is essentially determined by 20ish percent of the country.. whichever gets the larger turnout of the 40% that vote in the US.

Granted, in this last case it was nearly 61%.. so Whoever got the most of the 30%.

But is it necessarily a bad thing if only 20% of people determine the president? Because of our electoral system, even if 100% of people voted, the real decision would come down to only 20% in the battleground states, so what's wrong with just cutting to the chase and letting that 20% decide instead of the other 80% wasting their time?

kinggovernor · 10-23-2006, 08:32 AM

this kind of thinking is what makes certain places a lock for one party

Kytro · 10-23-2006, 08:40 AM

People = morans. Vote a certain way because they always have / they were brought up that way.

hsmith · 10-23-2006, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

this kind of thinking is what makes certain places a lock for one party

.

and it is the same thinking that "your vote is wasted" when you vote 3rd party

7960 · 10-23-2006, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

.

and it is the same thinking that "your vote is wasted" when you vote 3rd party

but it's not... it allows 3rd party candidates to qualify for matching funds for the next election so they can get more name recognition and have more of a chance.

AVengeance · 10-23-2006, 02:01 PM

why is it people thing "TEH PREZ" is the only item on a ballot? There are numerous local, county, state, AND national items on ballots. That whole "vote doesn't matter" is just a control method for keeping the sheep either voting for the status quo, or not voting at all... and by the looks of it, it's working.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 10-23-2006, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

this kind of thinking is what makes certain places a lock for one party

But it's not. Where I live in Texas, there is no way in hell my vote for President or Senator, for example, would matter. However, if I saw polls which indicated there was actually a possibility a Democrat could win, then I'd vote, and it would no longer be a lock for the Republicans. Therefore my type of thinking has nothing to do with Republicans winning so long as I keep consulting polls first.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 10-23-2006, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

.

and it is the same thinking that "your vote is wasted" when you vote 3rd party

Totally separate issue. When you vote for a third party, your vote is not wasted. You're making one of the two major parties take note that their votes are being drained, and, at minimum, they will try to start reaching out to 3rd party voters more, or at best the 3rd party could eventually catch on. There's no equivalent rationale when not voting for one of the two major parties because one is virtually guaranteed to win. If you were to vote for the virtually guaranteed loser, what would be accomplished? Nothing. If 80% of people in my district like Republicans, then it doesn't matter if the Democrats get a 100% turn out, they will still only gain 20% of the vote. It's objectively useless.

kinggovernor · 10-23-2006, 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

But it's not. Where I live in Texas, there is no way in hell my vote for President or Senator, for example, would matter. However, if I saw polls which indicated there was actually a possibility a Democrat could win, then I'd vote, and it would no longer be a lock for the Republicans. Therefore my type of thinking has nothing to do with Republicans winning so long as I keep consulting polls first.

polls aren't 100% right

SpicyMcVoodoo · 10-23-2006, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

polls aren't 100% right

They don't have to be 100% right. If a poll even has a 15% margin of error, which is unrealistically huge, there is still no point in me voting Democrat where polls have predicted Republicans will get 85% of the vote.

7960 · 10-24-2006, 12:01 AM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

They don't have to be 100% right. If a poll even has a 15% margin of error, which is unrealistically huge, there is still no point in me voting Democrat where polls have predicted Republicans will get 85% of the vote.

one thing that's being ignored here is the alternative isn't so peachy either...change it so it's "popular vote wins" and

1. nobody will every campaign in the small states or even in the outskirts of the bigger states, and
2. someone could get elected by campaigning in 50 or 60 cities.

Do you want your president decided by LA, NY, Chicago, Houston, Philly, etc?