Your vote doesn’t count

[Simpletruther]

At least in the practical sense of making a difference in the outcome of elections.

This is a near universal truth beyond the very local level. And even locally it’s a rare event.

The odds of your vote deciding A national election have to be many millions to one.

So, why not vote for who you like the most, as a matter of principal? Or don’t vote, if there are no good candidates?

 

[smallvoice]

At least in the practical sense of making a difference in the outcome of elections.

This is a near universal truth beyond the very local level. And even locally it’s a rare event.

The odds of your vote deciding A national election have to be many millions to one.

So, why not vote for who you like the most, as a matter of principal? Or don’t vote, if there are no good candidates?

I think that's how we all vote now. I could care less what Jackass or Elephant leads the party.

 

[Helix]

saying that it doesn't count is false. however, it doesn't count as much as i'd like, especially in the primaries. the candidate has usually been picked by the time i get a chance to weigh in. i'd like to see that change.

 

[Simpletruther]

saying that it doesn't count is false. however, it doesn't count as much as i'd like, especially in the primaries. the candidate has usually been picked by the time i get a chance to weigh in. i'd like to see that change.

Again I mean in the sense of making a difference in the outcome. It really doesn’t count.

 

[Helix]

Again I mean in the sense of making a difference in the outcome. It really doesn’t count.

i don't agree. however, no one is forcing you to vote.

 

[TrueScotsman]

At least in the practical sense of making a difference in the outcome of elections.

This is a near universal truth beyond the very local level. And even locally it’s a rare event.

The odds of your vote deciding A national election have to be many millions to one.

So, why not vote for who you like the most, as a matter of principal? Or don’t vote, if there are no good candidates?

Whose 80,000 votes made Trump President in 2016? It's not about the individual voter, but the collective will of the people. Which is why it should be one person, one vote in the general. And the primaries should perhaps also be done on a national level.

We don't need Presidents running for governor of only certain states, they should run on a mandate from a majority of the entire population of the country.

 

[TrueScotsman]

I will note, I am totally okay with those on the Right voting for whatever candidate they want. The Libertarian Party in particular sounds promising.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Your vote doesn't count

Trumper propaganda. In 2016 Trump won Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin each by minuscule numbers, giving him the Electoral College win.

Every single vote counts! Remember that on November 3, 2020.

 

[Simpletruther]

Your vote doesn't count

Trumper propaganda. In 2016 Trump won Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin each by minuscule numbers, giving him the Electoral College win.

Every single vote counts! Remember that on November 3, 2020.

I think that ^ is trump propaganda.

 

[Perotista]

At least in the practical sense of making a difference in the outcome of elections.

This is a near universal truth beyond the very local level. And even locally it’s a rare event.

The odds of your vote deciding A national election have to be many millions to one.

So, why not vote for who you like the most, as a matter of principal? Or don’t vote, if there are no good candidates?

I done that all my life. There have been elections where I don't like neither major party candidates, so I vote against them, third party. I've voted in ever presidential election since 1968 when you had to be 21 to vote. Five of those elections, my vote went to third party candidates. Three times because I wanted the third party candidate to win, the last two because I thought it was so important to have my vote officially registered against both major party candidates.

The R and the D mean nothing to me. The candidates do, candidates matter to me.

 

[Irwin Corey]

At least in the practical sense of making a difference in the outcome of elections.

This is a near universal truth beyond the very local level. And even locally it’s a rare event.

The odds of your vote deciding A national election have to be many millions to one.

So, why not vote for who you like the most, as a matter of principal? Or don’t vote, if there are no good candidates?

Baloney! The last election was decided by 80,000 votes in 3 key states. Not because 80,000 Democrats voted for tRump but because Millions of Democrats were persuaded that the election was a lock or that Clinton was damaged or … whatever … they stayed home. And look what happened. Getting to the polls AbsaByGodLutely matters.

 

[Craig234]

The R and the D mean nothing to me. The candidates do, candidates matter to me.

Unfortunately, the R and D are about 95% of the choice. It's an illusion if you think it's about the person, not the party.

 

[Craig234]

Problem with the OP is that if people listen and do it, then larger numbers will change their vote and it's more likely to change the result.

 

[Simpletruther]

Baloney! The last election was decided by 80,000 votes in 3 key states. Not because 80,000 Democrats voted for tRump but because Millions of Democrats were persuaded that the election was a lock or that Clinton was damaged or … whatever … they stayed home. And look what happened. Getting to the polls AbsaByGodLutely matters.

You are confusing masses of people with yourself, a total of one vote.

My OP is demonstratably true. It’s just math.

 

[Simpletruther]

Problem with the OP is that if people listen and do it, then larger numbers will change their vote and it's more likely to change the result.

Well, for one thing, it still wouldn’t change the point of your individual vote, that is undeniable math.

But if one could be so influencial, then all the more reason to preach voting conscious, as it might mean a real change and more integrity in the process and real reform becasue of our influence.

 

[Chomsky]

Whose 80,000 votes made Trump President in 2016? It's not about the individual voter, but the collective will of the people. Which is why it should be one person, one vote in the general. And the primaries should perhaps also be done on a national level.

We don't need Presidents running for governor of only certain states, they should run on a mandate from a majority of the entire population of the country.

Hear! Hear!

 

[joko104]

The Democratic Party wants to make it so your entire state doesn't matter. They want to erase "The United States of" from what this country has always been. It takes central control for a total take-over.

 

[Perotista]

Unfortunately, the R and D are about 95% of the choice. It's an illusion if you think it's about the person, not the party.

All you're doing when you support the R and or the D is deciding which corporate and Wall Street firms, lobbyists, special interests get more government support and benefits than the others. Of course nowadays, quite a lot of those folks donate to both parties with usually incumbents getting the far larger share. Incumbents usually win, so that is the thinking behind that.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

 

[Irwin Corey]

You are confusing masses of people with yourself, a total of one vote.

My OP is demonstratably true. It’s just math.

But, the 16 election proves that even if it's true on a micro level, it's demonstrably false on a National level. Every vote is needed and every vote counts.

 

[Simpletruther]

But, the 16 election proves that even if it's true on a micro level, it's demonstrably false on a National level. Every vote is needed and every vote counts.

Not unless a deciding state comes down to one vote difference.

Unless that happens, whether you went to the polls or not makes no difference. You vote didn’t count (in The sense of effecting the outcome).

And it likely will not happen in 10 thousand years of voting. It’s undeniable math.


A person can only vote on a “micro level”. They can’t vote for anyone else.

 

[Perotista]

Whose 80,000 votes made Trump President in 2016? It's not about the individual voter, but the collective will of the people. Which is why it should be one person, one vote in the general. And the primaries should perhaps also be done on a national level.

We don't need Presidents running for governor of only certain states, they should run on a mandate from a majority of the entire population of the country.

What was the collective will of the people. 54% of all Americans voted against Trump, in my way of thinking the collective will of the people was they didn't want Trump as president. 52% of all Americans voted against Hillary Clinton, again the collective will of the people didn't want her as president either. The majority voted against both major party candidates. Close to 17 million people decided Hillary would be one of the two candidates, 14 million folks made Trump the other.

Now a national primary isn't a bad idea. I'm not sure how it would be done, perhaps as a jungle primary. Our CD-6 special election was held that way. All candidates regardless of party went on the ballot. If no candidate received 50% plus one vote, a runoff election was held between the top two.

It could be done in rounds. Round one held in June, all presidential candidates on the ballot, major parties, third parties, independents which could mean 50 or so candidates. Vote for one. The top 5 go on to round two to be held in August to narrow it down to two with the final in November as we have now. There are countries that do it this way. Just a suggestion.

 

[JMR]

You are confusing masses of people with yourself, a total of one vote.

My OP is demonstratably true. It’s just math.

The math will also demonstrate that as fewer and fewer people vote, YOUR vote will count more. The reason a certain party likes to suppress voter turnout. And why Russia spent such effort to suppress turnout.

 

[Simpletruther]

The math will also demonstrate that as fewer and fewer people vote, YOUR vote will count more. The reason a certain party likes to suppress voter turnout. And why Russia spent such effort to suppress turnout.

No, it wouldn’t make my vote count more. It would only increase the small posibikity that my vote would count any
At all (in the sense of effecting the outcome).

And the lower and lower the total vote count drops, it might eventually make the possibility high enough to think about. But on a nationwide election, not likely. We are still talking 10s of millions, even with a big drop.

 

[JMR]

No, it wouldn’t make my vote count more. It would only increase the small posibikity that my vote would count any
At all (in the sense of effecting the outcome).

And the lower and lower the total vote count drops, it might eventually make the possibility high enough to think about. But on a nationwide election, not likely. We are still talking 10s of millions, even with a big drop.

In other words you ignore the reality of the math, because YOU feel YOUR vote won't be the decider. Do you not see yourself as part of any group?

 

[Simpletruther]

In other words you ignore the reality of the math, because YOU feel YOUR vote won't be the decider. Do you not see yourself as part of any group?

No,
I am accepting the math. The math says my vote will not make a difference in the outcome, to an incredibly high probability.

Whether I am part of a group or not doesn’t change that.