NationStates Jolt Archive

Does your individual vote actually really make a difference?

If so, has it ever actually made a difference in the past?

If not, and you vote, why do you waste your time voting?

I live in California with approximately 20 million other voters. John Kerry won our state in the last election by approximately 1.2 million votes. That means that if I somehow persuaded 500,000 people who voted for Kerry to completely change their minds and vote for Bush, There would still be a medium sized city worth of people who's mind would still need to be changed to turn the state over to Bush, and even then, it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the election anyway. I realize that there have been close elections in the past, such as Florida 2000, but even if I was living in that state at the time, my individual vote wouldn't have changed the outcome, and Bush would still have beaten Gore by 750-2000 votes (depending on which tally you look at). So, does your vote actually matter?

As a democrat, of course not! :)

(That is, if I were old enough)

Of course it does. Just because every election isn't decided by a margin of 1 doesn't mean that votes are worthless. Exercising one's democratic, regardless of the outcome, is of absolute importance.

Of course it does. Just because every election isn't decided by a margin of 1 doesn't mean that votes are worthless. Exercising one's democratic, regardless of the outcome, is of absolute importance.

Well you say "of course it does", but how has your individual vote made a difference?

Britain has a first past the post system in its constituencies - so if you vote for a minority party outside of London, it's not likely to get in, even if it gathers a sizeable proportion of the national vote.

This is why we should have some form of proportional representation. Then everyone's vote would count.

Well you say "of course it does", but how has your individual vote made a difference?

By being a part of the margin that set things over.

You see, in your case of 500,000 people making the difference, if all of those 500,000 decided to stay home and not vote - all of a sudden there would be a tie.

Meanwhile, you seem to think that the presidential election is all that matters. This is hardly true. In truth, your local government will affect your day to day life much more than the president will - and those margins are much lower.

If you manage to convince everyone else that their votes don't matter, my votes would. :D

My vote mattered in that I'm allowed to cast it, because I'm a legally entitled, enfranchised member of society, and in casting a vote I am exercising my right to engage in a free and democratic process. In my constituency, my party has little chance of voting. So that means I shouldn't vote? Bullshit. Besides, I'm not blessed with the gift of clairvoyance.

Yes, because my vote is special.

By being a part of the margin that set things over.

You see, in your case of 500,000 people making the difference, if all of those 500,000 decided to stay home and not vote - all of a sudden there would be a tie.

Meanwhile, you seem to think that the presidential election is all that matters. This is hardly true. In truth, your local government will affect your day to day life much more than the president will - and those margins are much lower.

But I'm talking about you individually.


and actually, in my example, a million Kerry supporters would have had to stay home, because I persuaded 500,000 of them to change their minds. so instead of -1 for Kerry, + 1 for bush, it would have been -1 for Kerry, 0 for Bush. And even then, it wouldn't have changed the outcome.

Yes, my vote makes a difference to me individually.

My vote mattered in that I'm allowed to cast it, because I'm a legally entitled, enfranchised member of society, and in casting a vote I am exercising my right to engage in a free and democratic process. In my constituency, my party has little chance of voting. So that means I shouldn't vote? Bullshit. Besides, I'm not blessed with the gift of clairvoyance.

I didn't say you shouldn't, I'm just arguing that it'll never change anything.



And watch your language.

Yes, it will change something. It affects me. If I don't vote, then that is an expression of apathy, regardless of whether my ballot is 'lost' in a landslide. So, yes, every time I have voted (which has only been twice, but still), and every time I've voted in smaller elections, it has mattered to me. So yes, my individual really matters.

But I'm talking about you individually.

It is impossible to separate your individual contribution from the contribution of the whole when you are discussing voting.

and actually, in my example, a million Kerry supporters would have had to stay home, because I persuaded 500,000 of them to change their minds. so instead of -1 for Kerry, + 1 for bush, it would have been -1 for Kerry, 0 for Bush. And even then, it wouldn't have changed the outcome.

Again, the electoral process is a completely different system - and the majority of the candidates you can vote for are not presidential candidates - and have nothing to do with the electoral system.

Why do you think that voting only matters when voting for president, especially when you consider that your local government has much more of a day-to-day effect on your life?

I didn't say you shouldn't, I'm just arguing that it'll never change anything.



And watch your language.
Brian, I'm sure your alright, but what in fucks sake makes you believe that you have any right to ask someone to mind their motherfucking language, if they weren't fucking flaming?

Don't shake your finger at anyone here for cursing. If it offends you, don't hop on the net with the big boys and girls.

My individual vote will count as much as a piece of monkey crap counts as food. I could know that one of the presidential candidates was the devil yet that does not mean I can do anything. The thing that really sucks about democracy is the people, take one look at your fellow man and wonder how on earth we can trust a decision of this importance to these slobs.

Yes, I am a bit cynical but when you think about it, the average person is dumb, the average person was the C-student who slept in class and passed through luck or cheating.

I live in California but I focus more on propositions. I live in the San Fernando Valley, which is predominantly republican.

Yes, I am a bit cynical but when you think about it, the average person is dumb, the average person was the C-student who slept in class and passed through luck or cheating.
And was voted President of the United States by more average people. I do hope Presidential elections don't become like High School class elections, where everyone votes for the most popular kid, but unfortunately, that's what it is turning into.

And was voted President of the United States by more average people. I do hope Presidential elections don't become like High School class elections, where everyone votes for the most popular kid, but unfortunately, that's what it is turning into.

Elections are always like that.. people vote for the person they know most about.

And was voted President of the United States by more average people. I do hope Presidential elections don't become like High School class elections, where everyone votes for the most popular kid, but unfortunately, that's what it is turning into.

Hmmm does anybody read Mencken anymore?

The following appeared in the Baltimore Evening Sun on 26 July 1920, in an article entitled "Bayard vs. Lionheart" (and reprinted in the book On Politics: A Carnival of Buncombe), Mencken opined cynically on the difficulties of good men reaching national office when such campaigns must necessarily be conducted remotely:

The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.

The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

:)

Elections are always like that.. people vote for the person they know most about.
Not really. In the 2004 election, I knew more about Bush than Kerry, and that was what turned me off to Bush. People vote for the person they think they know most about. The more I know about Bush, the less I'd vote for him. And that wasn't the point, in High School, you vote for the hot girl who gave you a blow job, (or guy in your case :p ) or the guy that ate dog feces for ten dollars. You wouldn't vote for the person that would do a good job, you'd vote for your friends.

Not really. In the 2004 election, I knew more about Bush than Kerry, and that was what turned me off to Bush. People vote for the person they think they know most about. The more I know about Bush, the less I'd vote for him. And that wasn't the point, in High School, you vote for the hot girl who gave you a blow job, (or guy in your case :p ) or the guy that ate dog feces for ten dollars. You wouldn't vote for the person that would do a good job, you'd vote for your friends.

Well, I should of defined my statement a little bit more: Bush was better known, and also better liked. Well I'm typically an issues person..

LOL, good one on the blow job part lol... only if he was really hot.

But honestly.. I would vote on the issues because that's what I am. An issues based person. I was a rarity in high school.. and sometimes I still think I am in college because in student elections people vote for who is best looking.

Well, I should of defined my statement a little bit more: Bush was better known, and also better liked. Well I'm typically an issues person..
Bush was beter known in a good way. FOX News reported absolutely no dirt about Bush, yet they constantly attacked Kerry and made him look like an idiot. That's a whole different story. I think you'll find it more and more common that the more people know about Bush, his family and his neocon posse, the less likely they are to vote for him. I remember my Am. History teacher saying "I just know so much about the Bush Administration that I would never vote for Bush."

Each vote matters. Just because they are counted in aggregate does not mean they dont each count. Each vote has just as much weight, unless you live in the US where the weight of each vote depends on which state you were in while you cast it.

Bush was beter known in a good way. FOX News reported absolutely no dirt about Bush, yet they constantly attacked Kerry and made him look like an idiot. That's a whole different story. I think you'll find it more and more common that the more people know about Bush, his family and his neocon posse, the less likely they are to vote for him. I remember my Am. History teacher saying "I just know so much about the Bush Administration that I would never vote for Bush."

Well that's that. I'm not going to get into Bush and whether you like him, or what you think about him. I just don't agree iwth you. And that's that. I know plenty about the Bush adminstration but I still voted for him. That's my right.

Well that's that. I'm not going to get into Bush and whether you like him, or what you think about him. I just don't agree iwth you. And that's that. I know plenty about the Bush adminstration but I still voted for him. That's my right.yet you don't know what the PNAC is and you're too stubborn to go to their site because you think it's liberal propaganda!
It is indeed and I respect that. :D

But I'm talking about you individually.


and actually, in my example, a million Kerry supporters would have had to stay home, because I persuaded 500,000 of them to change their minds. so instead of -1 for Kerry, + 1 for bush, it would have been -1 for Kerry, 0 for Bush. And even then, it wouldn't have changed the outcome.

But you had no way of knowing that. Consider if the media's attempt to announce Kerry as the winner in the exit polls had worked and actually convinced Bush supporters to stay at home because it was a lost battle, how easily it could have made a serious difference.
You should also consider that your voice does matter. Politicians (and marketing specialists) have determined that on average, every single individual has the capability to influnce the votes of 4 different people. Looking at it in those terms, a single voter is far more powerful than they think.

Each vote matters. Just because they are counted in aggregate does not mean they dont each count. Each vote has just as much weight, unless you live in the US where the weight of each vote depends on which state you were in while you cast it.
Many people posting do live in the US. Stupid electoral college is stupid :mad:

At least with the electoral college gone it would not matter what state you live in and who your neighbors were when it came to voting.

Many people posting do live in the US. Stupid electoral college is stupid :mad:

At least with the electoral college gone it would not matter what state you live in and who your neighbors were when it came to voting.

Take away the electorial college and see how fast states start breaking away from the union. That is the quickest road to independence for California and New York one could possibly obtain.

Britain has a first past the post system in its constituencies - so if you vote for a minority party outside of London, it's not likely to get in, even if it gathers a sizeable proportion of the national vote.

This is why we should have some form of proportional representation. Then everyone's vote would count.


Except in Britain we don't vote for parties we vote for local candidates, i.e individual members of Parliament it is only recently (in historical terms) that the MP's are now also affiliated to Political parties.

Many people posting do live in the US. Stupid electoral college is stupid :mad:

At least with the electoral college gone it would not matter what state you live in and who your neighbors were when it came to voting.

Without the electoral college, New York City, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Miami and Houston would singlehandedly decide the election. States would no longer matter... so goodbye anything a city doesn't need. Like highways. Or National Parks.

The Electoral College is based on Congress: every state gets two votes for their senators, plus one for each Congressman or Congresswoman. Thus every state gets at least 3 votes. This gives the small states a little more say than they should, and keeps the large states from deciding anything.
For example, all of New Engand has the same number of votes as California.

Without the electoral college, New York City, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Miami and Houston would singlehandedly decide the election. States would no longer matter... so goodbye anything a city doesn't need. Like highways. Or National Parks.

The Electoral College is based on Congress: every state gets two votes for their senators, plus one for each Congressman or Congresswoman. Thus every state gets at least 3 votes. This gives the small states a little more say than they should, and keeps the large states from deciding anything.
For example, all of New Engand has the same number of votes as California.
I did the math a while back, but if I remember correctly, someone's vote from Wyoming counts ~3.5 times more than someone's vote in California. That is why the electoral college favors smaller states and why Bush won in 2004 and partially why he "won" in 2000.

Does your individual vote actually really make a difference?

If so, has it ever actually made a difference in the past?

If not, and you vote, why do you waste your time voting?

I live in California with approximately 20 million other voters. John Kerry won our state in the last election by approximately 1.2 million votes. That means that if I somehow persuaded 500,000 people who voted for Kerry to completely change their minds and vote for Bush, There would still be a medium sized city worth of people who's mind would still need to be changed to turn the state over to Bush, and even then, it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the election anyway. I realize that there have been close elections in the past, such as Florida 2000, but even if I was living in that state at the time, my individual vote wouldn't have changed the outcome, and Bush would still have beaten Gore by 750-2000 votes (depending on which tally you look at). So, does your vote actually matter?

I can't vote, so I can't rightly say. I can say that votes would matter more if the electoral college system is overturned.

I did the math a while back, but if I remember correctly, someone's vote from Wyoming counts ~3.5 times more than someone's vote in California. That is why the electoral college favors smaller states and why Bush won in 2004 and partially why he "won" in 2000.

Sort of.
Small states get 2 "extra" votes, so the election is not by straight population. (2 senators + number of congressional reps = votes).

As for 3.5 times, that's not quite right either: it assumes that you vote for the President. You do not. Your vote tells the Electoral Congress representative how to vote.

Wyoming gets 3 EC votes. California gets 55.
How do you want to count? Consider:

Case A: Wyoming has 493,782 people. California has 33,871,648.
493,782/3 = 82,297 voters per EC vote vs. 33,871,648/55 = 615,848
615,848/82,297 = means that each Wyoming vote is worth 7.5 California votes per EC vote!

Case B: There are a total of 538 electoral votes, victory requires 270 votes.
Wyoming has (3/270= )1.1% of the electoral votes vs. California (55/270=) 20%. So a California vote is worth 20 times a Wyoming vote!

...there are 3 kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics! :D

The Electoral College is a good thing, as it keeps the big states from deciding everything. QED.

Does your individual vote actually really make a difference?

If so, has it ever actually made a difference in the past?

If not, and you vote, why do you waste your time voting?

I live in California with approximately 20 million other voters. John Kerry won our state in the last election by approximately 1.2 million votes. That means that if I somehow persuaded 500,000 people who voted for Kerry to completely change their minds and vote for Bush, There would still be a medium sized city worth of people who's mind would still need to be changed to turn the state over to Bush, and even then, it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the election anyway. I realize that there have been close elections in the past, such as Florida 2000, but even if I was living in that state at the time, my individual vote wouldn't have changed the outcome, and Bush would still have beaten Gore by 750-2000 votes (depending on which tally you look at). So, does your vote actually matter?

I live in Texas, so my vote doesn't count for anything. But I still vote because I figure every vote counts to somebody. If Bush loses 500,000 votes in Texas that he thought he would get, maybe it sends him a signal. Well, not him because he's oblivious to that stuff, but I have to think there are still some rational people in the Republican Party who might one day realize they are losing the secular center.