Evil, the alternate arguemnt, advanced by the 30 odd states that would have no clout under a popular election, is that they would have no say in a popular election!

And to get rid of the electoral college, you would have to have 3/4 of the states approve. That is not going to happen, as there are a lot more small states than big states.

I live in a non-swing state as well, so I doubt my vote will count for much either, but I would rather have it this way, where the candidates do pay attention to the Iowas, Colorados, New Mexicos and West Vas, than if they just concentrated on the 2 coasts and ignored the rest of the nation.

Nothing is perfect, but I prefer this imperfection to the alternative.

I Voted Today (Part II) By: evilPidge Posted: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 on Random Acts of Senselss Fuckery Message Board: Politics Living in a non-swing state is both a good and a bad thing. Its a good thing because I don't have to put up with as much political bull-crap as the swing states do. I don't have to see all of the mud-slinging that goes on in these hotly contested states (don't get me wrong, we still see a fair amount of mud-slinging here in Texas, but not nearly as much as other states). The reason that living is a non-swing state is good is also the bad thing about living in a non-swing state. I know a couple people (if that many bother to read this) are scratching their heads at that last remark. What I mean is this. Because I'm not living in a non-swing state, my vote doesn't really count, and therefore the candidates don't really care about this state. Let me back up. I live in Texas. If you are a democrate living in Texas and you believe that Sen Kerry has a snowballs chance of defeating President Bush, your living in a dream world. The President is going to win Texas. Thats pretty much a fact. Not just because he is from Texas, but more because Texas is a republican state. The last time a Texas voted democrate was almost 30 years ago in Link1976, and I don't see the trend changing from where I'm sitting. This brings me to my point (yes, I do have one). I really feel disinfranchised by the way the electoral college works right now. Why should a few states decided who becomes President when there are 50 states total. Why shouldn't the electoral votes be divided within each state. I've linked a web page that talks about the issue. Think about it.

Wahhhh. Try being a republican living in California.

EvilPidge: Check out my dilema . . . since we are military, we vote with our home state, which is Texas . . . so it doesn't matter what I think because, as you have noted, Texas is sooooo going to Bush. Now, even IF I could vote with Hawaii, this would not matter either because: a. we have a total of 4 electoral college votes b. by the time we vote, the mainland has already has a huge jumpstart on voting and we are pretty much peripheral because of the time difference c. Hawaii will go to Kerry, regardless of how I would vote

I really feel disinfranchised by the way the electoral college works right now.

I feel for you. Voting for us is like political masturbation. We're only doing it to make ourselves feel good.

EvilPidge,

It's not the electoral college's fault that you live in a heavily republican area. You can always move if you feel that strongly about it.

Wahhhh. Try being a republican living in California.

I was until feb 2000 when I got out of the Army

It's not the electoral college's fault that you live in a heavily republican area. You can always move if you feel that strongly about it.

my vote still wouldn't matter. If I moved to a heavily Democratic state, for example, would it really matter whether or not I voted? Besides, picking up and moving is an insane way to deal with it.

It's not the electoral college's fault that you live in a heavily republican area

Yes it is. It's the way the system is set up. His vote just doesn't count. Not individually anyways. I'm starting to see some simmering, especially after the last election, about the election process. Although, I don't really see what can be done without a major upheaval of the entire country. Now, if EVERYONE decided that their votes don't count enough and just didn't go to the polls, then high-level eyebrows would be raised, but what's the likelihood of that happening?

I guess right now a democrat would feel very small in the vastness of Texas....

Reply #6 By: xtine - 10/26/2004 10:01:46 PM It's not the electoral college's fault that you live in a heavily republican area Yes it is. It's the way the system is set up. His vote just doesn't count. Not individually anyways

This is pure unadulterated bull crap! His vote doesn't count? Since when? And just how do you think they hand out the electoral votes.

This is pure unadulterated bull crap! His vote doesn't count? Since when? And just how do you think they hand out the electoral votes.

I think what shes saying is that if you live in a state that will vote 90% democrate, what will your vote matter? If I vote its 1,800,000 to 200,000 and the 10 electoral votes go to the Dems. If i don't vote its 1,800,00 to 199,999 and the 10 electoral votes go to the dems. My vote did not have an impact.

The elctoral system is the only way to keep politicians from pandering to a tiny handful of cities while ignoring the rest of the nation. You think anyone  outside of a densely packed city would even enter a politicians mind if there were no electoral system? Think again. Do the math, it would take a minimal effort to simply pander to the urban voter in any election system that didn't give some wieght to the less densely populated areas of the country. It is bad enough even with the electoral college to give small pop states a voice. Without it? Can you say "Fuck all of Montana!"? The politicians surely could.

If each vote counted as one vote and there were no state boundrys and no electoral votes at all, if we voted as a nation with more than two parties gunning for the big prize then maybe we would finally be a true democracy, however we are not a democracy we are a republic.

and to the republic for which it stands

Can you say "Fuck all of Montana!"? The politicians surely could.

yes, yes I can.

The thing is that with the electoral college the way it is now, entire states are being ignored. When was the last time Bush was campaigning in California? More electoral votes there than you can shake a stick at. How about Kerry in Texas?

Reply #11 By: evilPidge - 10/31/2004 3:04:30 PM Can you say "Fuck all of Montana!"? The politicians surely could. yes, yes I can. The thing is that with the electoral college the way it is now, entire states are being ignored. When was the last time Bush was campaigning in California? More electoral votes there than you can shake a stick at. How about Kerry in Texas?

Why should he? CA is a solidly Democratic state and always will be!

CA is a solidly Democratic state and always will be!

Tell that to Arnold. The point is, with Califonia sewn up, what reason does either candidate have to pay any attention to the state? Why should more attention be given to Minnisota and Wisconsin than to California or Texas?

Reply #13 By: evilPidge - 10/31/2004 8:44:06 PM CA is a solidly Democratic state and always will be! Tell that to Arnold. The point is, with Califonia sewn up, what reason does either candidate have to pay any attention to the state? Why should more attention be given to Minnisota and Wisconsin than to California or Texas?

Arnold just 'THINKS" he's a republican.

well whatever he is, hes doing a good job of stumping for the Republicans. Hell he even got a Kennedy to show up at the RNC!