2024 Election follies: what's your vote worth?

Taichiliberal

Taichiliberal

Shaken, not stirred!
Here's a little dose of reality for all of you (regardless of political affiliation) hyperventilating about the up-coming elections this November.

THE ONLY VOTES FOR PRESIDENT THAT COUNT ARE THE ELECTORAL. THE POPULAR VOTE IS A WASTE OF TIME.

Think: the electoral vote is suppose to represent the consensus of the popular vote for all individual states. Now, if you have a president who wins the electoral vote but loses the popular vote, that means that there are some states that DO NOT ADHERE TO THE RULES.

In other words, in some states the "electors" can just vote as they please without any legal repercussions.

So stop hand wringing about the presidential election. Focus more on your congressional elections (local and federal) that DO NOT depend on electoral votes.

Just saying.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Here's a little dose of reality for all of you (regardless of political affiliation) hyperventilating about the up-coming elections this November.

THE ONLY VOTES FOR PRESIDENT THAT COUNT ARE THE ELECTORAL. THE POPULAR VOTE IS A WASTE OF TIME.

Think: the electoral vote is suppose to represent the consensus of the popular vote for all individual states. Now, if you have a president who wins the electoral vote but loses the popular vote, that means that there are some states that DO NOT ADHERE TO THE RULES.

In other words, in some states the "electors" can just vote as they please without any legal repercussions.

So stop hand wringing about the presidential election. Focus more on your congressional elections (local and federal) that DO NOT depend on electoral votes.

Just saying.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you are saying. Don't vote for President?!
 
Hume said:
Not sure what you are saying. Don't vote for President?!
Click to expand...
Oh you can vote, but it's a crap shoot if that vote really counts. Remember, in the last 60 years we've had 2 Presidents elected who DID NOT win the popular vote, but came to office on the electoral vote.

The electoral system was originally set up to compensate for states that had a low WHITE population back in the day. As time moved on, and blacks & native americans were acknowledged as human beings and citizens, this system should have been eliminated.

Now again, if you have states that DO NOT GUARANTEE their electors vote in accordance with their states popular vote, then the President is NOT elected by "the people" en masse.

It is what it is.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Here's a little dose of reality for all of you (regardless of political affiliation) hyperventilating about the up-coming elections this November.

THE ONLY VOTES FOR PRESIDENT THAT COUNT ARE THE ELECTORAL. THE POPULAR VOTE IS A WASTE OF TIME.

Think: the electoral vote is suppose to represent the consensus of the popular vote for all individual states. Now, if you have a president who wins the electoral vote but loses the popular vote, that means that there are some states that DO NOT ADHERE TO THE RULES.

In other words, in some states the "electors" can just vote as they please without any legal repercussions.

So stop hand wringing about the presidential election. Focus more on your congressional elections (local and federal) that DO NOT depend on electoral votes.

Just saying.
Click to expand...
If I'm understanding your position correctly it's an argument that gets made where I live. Biden is going to win California by 5 million votes. What people here say is the race for Mayor, even Board of Supervisors and local initiatives has almost as much influence on your day to day life as the vote for President. And the votes for those races are going to be much closer and therefore each individual vote much more important.

Speaking specifically about this board. We have the same 20 people or so talking about every single thing Trump and Biden do on a daily basis and day after day we ask each other "how could you vote for that person", when our vote essentially is meaningless.

As I see it you're not telling people not to vote for President, but it's almost wasted energy focusing on that only when we can have more influence elsewhere.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Here's a little dose of reality for all of you (regardless of political affiliation) hyperventilating about the up-coming elections this November.

THE ONLY VOTES FOR PRESIDENT THAT COUNT ARE THE ELECTORAL. THE POPULAR VOTE IS A WASTE OF TIME.

Think: the electoral vote is suppose to represent the consensus of the popular vote for all individual states. Now, if you have a president who wins the electoral vote but loses the popular vote, that means that there are some states that DO NOT ADHERE TO THE RULES.

In other words, in some states the "electors" can just vote as they please without any legal repercussions.

So stop hand wringing about the presidential election. Focus more on your congressional elections (local and federal) that DO NOT depend on electoral votes.

Just saying.
Click to expand...
State elector are bound. They can’t and don’t vote for whoever they please. The reasons someone can win the popular vote and lose the electoral college are two fold;

1. The percentage of the popular vote in any given state has no impact on the electoral votes in that state. So let’s say state a has ten electoral votes and state n has 11. State a is won by 500,000 votes by the democrats and state his won by 100,000 votes by Republicans, Repblicans will lead the electoral vote by 11-10 but trail the popular vote by 400,000.

2. One party wins most of the smaller states that carry more weight for each vote cast.

So every state adheres to the rules. No cheating is required to have a popular vote loser win the presidency.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Oh you can vote, but it's a crap shoot if that vote really counts. Remember, in the last 60 years we've had 2 Presidents elected who DID NOT win the popular vote, but came to office on the electoral vote.

The electoral system was originally set up to compensate for states that had a low WHITE population back in the day. As time moved on, and blacks & native americans were acknowledged as human beings and citizens, this system should have been eliminated.

Now again, if you have states that DO NOT GUARANTEE their electors vote in accordance with their states popular vote, then the President is NOT elected by "the people" en masse.

It is what it is.
Click to expand...
Way too defeatist for me.
 
Concart said:
State elector are bound. They can’t and don’t vote for whoever they please. The reasons someone can win the popular vote and lose the electoral college are two fold;

1. The percentage of the popular vote in any given state has no impact on the electoral votes in that state. So let’s say state a has ten electoral votes and state n has 11. State a is won by 500,000 votes by the democrats and state his won by 100,000 votes by Republicans, Repblicans will lead the electoral vote by 11-10 but trail the popular vote by 400,000.

2. One party wins most of the smaller states that carry more weight for each vote cast.

So every state adheres to the rules. No cheating is required to have a popular vote loser win the presidency.
Click to expand...
If that is indeed the case, then please explain how at least twice in my lifetime you've had a President elected to office who did NOT win the popular vote is considered "fair"?

Here's an explanation: To be elected president, the winner must get at least half plus one — or 270 electoral votes.
apnews.com

Electoral College vs. popular vote in the United States

WASHINGTON (AP) — WHY IS IT THAT ONE CANDIDATE CAN WIN THE POPULAR VOTE BUT ANOTHER WINS THE ELECTORAL VOTE AND THUS THE PRESIDENCY?
apnews.com apnews.com
 
Taichiliberal said:
If that is indeed the case, then please explain how at least twice in my lifetime you've had a President elected to office who did NOT win the popular vote is considered "fair"?

Here's an explanation: To be elected president, the winner must get at least half plus one — or 270 electoral votes.
apnews.com

Electoral College vs. popular vote in the United States

WASHINGTON (AP) — WHY IS IT THAT ONE CANDIDATE CAN WIN THE POPULAR VOTE BUT ANOTHER WINS THE ELECTORAL VOTE AND THUS THE PRESIDENCY?
apnews.com apnews.com
Click to expand...
I don’t by any means think it’s fair. I was responding more to your assertion that certain states don’t follow the rules. They do. It’s the rule itself that is hopelessly outdated. Hopefully enough states with enough electoral votes can change it.

With respect to how electors are picked; each party submits a slate of electors. Legislatures are bound by law to certify the slate iof the party that won that state’s popular vote and electors are bound by law to vote that way. This was the method by which Trump tried to steal the election. By submitting a slate of fake electors to Congress and have Pence accept them.
 
There are some states, maybe even all states, where electors can vote as they please, regardless of the actual ballot results. The electoral college was meant to be a safety check on the decision of voters, so they have to have that power. The electoral college, which has no use anymore, was put into place so that the country could avoid a dangerous, unqualified, Hitler, dictator kind of person from getting into office by basically conning the voters.

As far as I know, there has never been a case where the electors voted differently than what the voters of the state wanted.

The real problem is that the electoral college means that a vote in some states counts 2x that of a vote in another state.
 
Last edited:
ZenMode said:
There are some states, maybe even all states, where electors can vote as they please, regardless of the actual ballot results. The electoral college was meant to be a safety check on the decision of voters, so they have to have that power. The electoral college, which has no use anymore, was put into place so that the country could avoid a dangerous, unqualified, Hitler, dictator kind of person from getting into office by basically conning the voters.

As far as I know, there has never been a case where the electors voted differently than what the voters of the state wanted.

The real problem is that the electoral college means that a vote in some states counts 2x that of a vote in another state.
Click to expand...
Each state has legal right to set standard of how the elector votes. To my knowledge, not every state forces the elector to vote with majority of the state.
 
Concart said:
I don’t by any means think it’s fair. I was responding more to your assertion that certain states don’t follow the rules. They do. It’s the rule itself that is hopelessly outdated. Hopefully enough states with enough electoral votes can change it.

With respect to how electors are picked; each party submits a slate of electors. Legislatures are bound by law to certify the slate iof the party that won that state’s popular vote and electors are bound by law to vote that way. This was the method by which Trump tried to steal the election. By submitting a slate of fake electors to Congress and have Pence accept them.
Click to expand...
Nope, as the two links conclude, they are not EXACTLY following the rules. More so they are using loopholes within the rules. This is where you and I seem to have a deference of opinion to a degree.

I say that the electoral system should be eliminated.
 
ZenMode said:
There are some states, maybe even all states, where electors can vote as they please, regardless of the actual ballot results. The electoral college was meant to be a safety check on the decision of voters, so they have to have that power. The electoral college, which has no use anymore, was put into place so that the country could avoid a dangerous, unqualified, Hitler, dictator kind of person from getting into office by basically conning the voters.

As far as I know, there has never been a case where the electors voted differently than what the voters of the state wanted.

The real problem is that the electoral college means that a vote in some states counts 2x that of a vote in another state.
Click to expand...
Again, I my life time we've had two Presidents elected by the electoral, and NOT the popular vote. A matter of fact, a matter of history.
 
ZenMode said:
There are some states, maybe even all states, where electors can vote as they please, regardless of the actual ballot results. The electoral college was meant to be a safety check on the decision of voters, so they have to have that power. The electoral college, which has no use anymore, was put into place so that the country could avoid a dangerous, unqualified, Hitler, dictator kind of person from getting into office by basically conning the voters.

As far as I know, there has never been a case where the electors voted differently than what the voters of the state wanted.

The real problem is that the electoral college means that a vote in some states counts 2x that of a vote in another state. Just a few more states have to agree to allocate based on national popular vote and the electoral college will become moot.
Click to expand...
I believe you’re correct about the binding of electors, hence the term ‘faithless elector’. Since the party actually chooses the electors it would seem unlikely but I was mistaken about the legally binding part. Still, every state (or for Nebraska and Maine congressional district) allocates based on popular vote.
Taichiliberal said:
Nope, as the two links conclude, they are not EXACTLY following the rules. More so they are using loopholes within the rules. This is where you and I seem to have a deference of opinion to a degree.

I say that the electoral system should be eliminated.
Click to expand...
Can you give me an example of a state using a loophole to circumvent the popular vote? I am not aware of a single instance in which that has happened. Your links seem to indicate that it doesn’t happen. I do agree that the electoral college has long overstayed its welcome.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top