Your vote doesn’t count

[Captain Adverse]

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?

In 2016, according to this article (and the chart I found), there were 231 million eligible voters, and only 137 million actually voted, meaning 94 million did not vote.

Over 90 Million Eligible Voters Didn’t Vote in 2016 | Heavy.com

Clinton got 48.02%; Trump got 45.93% and other candidates shared the remaining 6.05%.

2016 Presidential General Election Results

Clinton got a plurality, but not a majority of all votes cast, i.e. more people voted against her than voted for her. Same with Trump.

Neither candidate got a majority of all votes possible as 94 Million people chose not to vote for anyone.

IMO this demand for a pure democracy would not really work well. That was recognized by the "Founding Fathers" who had historical examples (like Athens under Pericles) of how true the saying "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner" really was.

They read all the classics and histories available. They came to the conclusion that the best solution for a Republic would be a leader (President) selected by the "best men" (in the form of Electors) of each State; such Electors chosen by whatever method each State legislature decided. Currently this is decided by the popular vote apportioned for those Electors in each State.

I think that as a Federal Republic, that is the best way to reflect the popular will around the nation, not just that of the most populated States.

I had to learn this over time myself via study of American history, believing as a kid that everyone just voted for a President.

I have come to agree with the method, recognizing that if it were left to a pure democracy, then like every example in history it would eventually lead to a tyranny of the majority. One usually consisting of some demagogue or political party promising largesse to loyal supporters by taking it from those they find a way to make scapegoats.

Over time I have come to prefer and support the Electoral College, strange as it may work. This because otherwise I see this nation splitting into enclaves as those who are ignored try to break away and form their own nations.

 

[Lovebug]

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.

Just wondering, what are your thoughts on closed vs open primaries? Do you think outcomes were different if all states decided on one or the other?

 

[JMR]

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.

Try this math: Your belief that you are entitled to not participate because you are not the decider is shared by many voters of the X party. The Y party thinks everyone should get out and vote.
Which party's candidate do you think will win? Which person was the decider? In my math there were tons of deciders....all those who voted, and all those who chose not to decided the vote.

 

[Simpletruther]

Try this math: Your belief that you are entitled to not participate because you are not the decider is shared by many voters of the X party. The Y party thinks everyone should get out and vote.
Which party's candidate do you think will win? Which person was the decider? In my math there were tons of deciders....all those who voted, and all those who chose not to decided the vote.

That doesn’t change my point at all. Your point is true, but it doesn’t effect mine.

My choice of whether or not to vote doesn’t multiply. It is what it is. It isn’t interconnected with others.

 

[JMR]

That doesn’t change my point at all. Your point is true, but it doesn’t effect mine.

My choice of whether or not to vote doesn’t multiply. It is what it is. It isn’t interconnected with others.

That might be true if there were infinite choices. You presented two choices, and all others have the same two choices....Vote or Don't Vote. So much as you may not like it, I think you are interconnected.

 

[Simpletruther]

That might be true if there were infinite choices. You presented two choices, and all others have the same two choices....Vote or Don't Vote. So much as you may not like it, I think you are interconnected.

I don’t follow.

Whether I stay home, or vote a write in c adidate, or vote “with the pack” doesn’t change what other voters do. My vote (or lack of) is only one vote.

 

[JMR]

I don’t follow.

Whether I stay home, or vote a write in c adidate, or vote “with the pack” doesn’t change what other voters do. My vote (or lack of) is only one vote.

Then guard it carefully. You have created quite a splendid cage for it.

 

[poweRob]

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?

Woah is me... Trying doesn't matter any more. We might as well all just give up.

 

[poweRob]

I don’t follow.

Whether I stay home, or vote a write in c adidate, or vote “with the pack” doesn’t change what other voters do. My vote (or lack of) is only one vote.

A whole lot of bitching with no suggestions of what you'd actually do or like.

 

[Helix]

Just wondering, what are your thoughts on closed vs open primaries? Do you think outcomes were different if all states decided on one or the other?

i prefer open primaries. those work better for independents. however, i think that the best fix for our primary system is to have them in every state at the same time or to have two Super Tuesday style primaries. i prefer the former. everyone's primary vote should count no matter where they live.

 

[Bullseye]

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?

Unless I was a delegate to the Electoral College I'd never get to vote in a "national election". n

 

[Bullseye]

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.

Move to New Hampshire. :lamo

 

[Bullseye]

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

Our votes for Senators and Representatives DO make a deference to the outcomes.

 

[Lovebug]

i prefer open primaries. those work better for independents. however, i think that the best fix for our primary system is to have them in every state at the same time or to have two Super Tuesday style primaries. i prefer the former. everyone's primary vote should count no matter where they live.

It puzzles me that some states have open primaries, where things can get mucked up, and others don't.

 

[Renae]

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.

There's a reason we don't do that. Try reading history and you'll see your idea is a bad one.

 

[Bullseye]

It puzzles me that some states have open primaries, where things can get mucked up, and others don't.

In California it's worse that than; the TOP TWO finishers, regardless of party - advance to general election.

 

[Helix]

Move to New Hampshire. :lamo

a change of location is not a possibility at this point. i'd rather see the primary system fixed.

 

[Helix]

It puzzles me that some states have open primaries, where things can get mucked up, and others don't.

every state is an experiment, and i'm ok with that in some areas. i'm not a fan of letting the same states pick the candidates every time, however, especially considering how artificially limited our choices are in general elections.

 

[Good4Nothin]

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?

Your individual vote doesn't decide an election. That wouldn't even be possible, unless the election were tied and your vote was the last one.

But obviously every vote counts, although to different degrees depending on what state you live in.

 

[Slavister]

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 it's a good question. I agree that mathematically your vote does not mean much, indeed. However, if everyone either realized it or thought that's enough of a reason to not vote, the effect would be significant. Voting is a collective activity.

Civic duty is the answer IMO. Let me give you another couple examples that might clarify this by analogy...

- your single homeowner contribution to recycling may not be significant, but taken together with a lot of others, it becomes a force

- say someone is trying to decide whether to go to the Army and risk their life, while realizing that having 1 more soldier is not going to decide a war... does not seem very appealing now, does it?

Civic duty...

The concept of civic duty is based on the principle that citizens owe some allegiance to their government and that government in turn protects its citizens. Civic duties refer to the responsibilities of citizens. Often rights enjoyed by citizens also implies corresponding responsibilities.

 

[Linc]

Re: Your vote doesn’t count

every state is an experiment, and i'm ok with that in some areas. i'm not a fan of letting the same states pick the candidates every time, however, especially considering how artificially limited our choices are in general elections.

This link will give you all the information you need for presidential primaries/caucuses in 2020. The RNC has 56 and the DNC has 58.

Election 2020 - Presidential Primaries, Caucuses, and Conventions

Pretty overwhelming for info. Lots of patterns, such as how each party allocates delegates. All DNC’s are proportional. RNC’s are mostly winner-take-all or winner-take-most. Open v. Closed v. Modified is also there. Takes you time to develop patterns.

This is their home page: The Green Papers: United States Off Year Election 2019 Drop down to the 2020 General Election.

 

[TrueScotsman]

There's a reason we don't do that. Try reading history and you'll see your idea is a bad one.

History, never thought of that. What a novel idea. Perhaps I believe that things have changed considerably and don't take all my lessons from the past like Conservatives.

 

[Craig234]

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.

First of all, you're not suggesting 'only one person' do this, so it's not 'one vote'. Second, we just had an election that not only was won by one vote, but had the entire legislative house change which party controlled it because of that one vote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...21fe0588340_story.html?utm_term=.86e914cd30d9

 

[Craig234]

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.

It wants your state to matter one person, one vote, not like Republicans who want some people's vote to count for more than other people.

 

[joko104]

It wants your state to matter one person, one vote, not like Republicans who want some people's vote to count for more than other people.

Your sentence is a complete contradiction within itself.

Yes, most of us understand the Democratic Party wants a 100% federalized system of government for 100% total control and progressives who live in large cities want to eliminate any political relevancy of farmers, ranchers, rural areas and small towns.