News Have this damnable thought ever slipped through your mind that

[Alex_Sanders]

your vote... might not count?

 

[Andre]

What! No count??

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Do you mean vote doesn't count, or vote doesn't matter? Unless there is a glitch in the equipment, I expect the vote will count.

 

[jim hardy]

Surely you don't think there's any skullduggery afoot in today's political climate !

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Surely you don't think there's any skullduggery afoot in today's political climate !

Such as?

 

[alt]

Surely you don't think there's any skullduggery afoot in today's political climate !

Todays ? Psephologists who studied Athenian democracy discovered that the psephos (little pebble) was rorted on occasions, being quickly rub dyed during counting. Why would it be different now ?

 

[Hobin]

Todays ? Psephologists who studied Athenian democracy discovered that the psephos (little pebble) was rorted on occasions, being quickly rub dyed during counting. Why would it be different now ?

For starters, because we don't use pebbles.

 

[TylerH]

For starters, because we don't use pebbles.

That doesn't mean your vote can't be changed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hursti_Hack

 

[lisab]

Speaking of pebbles, I wonder how she's doing.

 

[dlgoff]

Speaking of pebbles, I wonder how she's doing.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

your vote... might not count?

Your vote counts as much as anyone else's. But voting was never enough. That's why we send money as well. However, since the SC decision legalizing super pacs, I have to wonder about the practical value of making donations now.

 

[Andre]

Speaking of pebbles, I wonder how she's doing.

The other Pebbles is fine too.

 

[256bits]

Make your vote count.
Vote early. Aannd vote often.
( How original is that !)

 

[SHISHKABOB]

maybe voting in the presidential election feels a bit unsatisfactory when it comes to your impact on the outcome, but remember that there are elections on the state level and local level too! The guys who run for county commissioner, etc. can have a much bigger effect on your life, and you can have a much bigger effect on their elections. Relative to the presidential elections.

 

[Hobin]

Relative to the presidential elections.

Perhaps I'm just a ridiculous idealist, but I'm much more concerned with what happens on a global level than what happens locally - at least politically speaking. Locally, I'm pretty sure I'll manage, so I might not even bother voting. Globally, there are a lot of thing I think could be improved, and that's why I vote.

(Fair disclaimer: I live in the Netherlands. I don't really know much about voting on state-level, though I would probably see this as more 'global' than 'local'.)

 

[eggshell]

Your vote counts as much as anyone else's. But voting was never enough. That's why we send money as well. However, since the SC decision legalizing super pacs, I have to wonder about the practical value of making donations now.

in smaller states the vote of the individual counts for more because you must consider that your vote plays a much greater role in determining whether or not your candidate gets the electoral vote from your state; though electoral votes and population are proportional, in the matter of determining whether or not your candidate wins your particular state, your vote matters more in a smaller population.

 

[Gokul43201]

...in the matter of determining whether or not your candidate wins your particular state...

But that matter is not one that matters, is it (once you've multiplied by electoral votes from the state)?

 

[SHISHKABOB]

Perhaps I'm just a ridiculous idealist, but I'm much more concerned with what happens on a global level than what happens locally - at least politically speaking. Locally, I'm pretty sure I'll manage, so I might not even bother voting. Globally, there are a lot of thing I think could be improved, and that's why I vote.

(Fair disclaimer: I live in the Netherlands. I don't really know much about voting on state-level, though I would probably see this as more 'global' than 'local'.)

Well, it's not that I'm not concerned about these national-scale issues, it's just that I am more connected to the issues near me. Perhaps it is not so in the Netherlands, but where I live (southeastern rural Pennsylvania, which is near Philadelphia) there is a biiiiig split in the ways people here would like things to be handled on the local scale. Things like public education in my area, or the way housing developments are taken care of, are things that people have vastly different opinions on in my "home town" and they also affect me quite a bit.

 

[MarcoD]

Well, it's not that I'm not concerned about these national-scale issues, it's just that I am more connected to the issues near me. Perhaps it is not so in the Netherlands, but where I live (southeastern rural Pennsylvania, which is near Philadelphia) there is a biiiiig split in the ways people here would like things to be handled on the local scale. Things like public education in my area, or the way housing developments are taken care of, are things that people have vastly different opinions on in my "home town" and they also affect me quite a bit.

It's a combination of being a small country, so lots of global news, and having it fairly well, at least superficially. In short, it's a luxury problem.

Personally, I have the opposite set of priorities since I think the Netherlands have lots more problems than people care to admit.

 

[turbo]

There is a concerted move in the GOP to disenfranchise voters who are poor, disabled, elderly, and minorities. If the local poll-watchers challenge your ballot, it will be put in the "provisional" pile and may or may not get counted. In Maine, the Tea Party tried to eliminate same-day registration and early voting, citing voter fraud. The Secretary of State used our staff to go hunting and found exactly ONE example of an ineligible voter, and had to go back ten years to find that example. We managed to get the Tea Party measure repealed with a citizens' initiative, but the Secretary of State wants to require state-issued IDs before you can vote, which would be a severe hardship on people who are elderly or poor or don't have access to vehicles. If you are holding down two or three jobs trying to keep your family fed, should you have to blow a half-day at the Department of Motor Vehicles to get an ID? The poll-tax is back.

 

[Gokul43201]

There is a concerted move in the GOP to disenfranchise voters who are poor, disabled, elderly, and minorities. If the local poll-watchers challenge your ballot, it will be put in the "provisional" pile and may or may not get counted. In Maine, the Tea Party tried to eliminate same-day registration and early voting, citing voter fraud. The Secretary of State used our staff to go hunting and found exactly ONE example of an ineligible voter, and had to go back ten years to find that example. We managed to get the Tea Party measure repealed with a citizens' initiative, but the Secretary of State wants to require state-issued IDs before you can vote, which would be a severe hardship on people who are elderly or poor or don't have access to vehicles. If you are holding down two or three jobs trying to keep your family fed, should you have to blow a half-day at the Department of Motor Vehicles to get an ID? The poll-tax is back.

This thread lives in GD (not P&WA). We should try to not make it political.

 

[turbo]

This thread lives in GD (not P&WA). We should try to not make it political.

Sorry. It is an inherently political issue, especially in the light of the efforts of one party to suppress the votes of weaker, poorer, more elderly voters. Our votes really might not count, if they prevail. I have to vote by absentee ballot every election. What if my ballot is tossed into the provisional pile due to the objection of a poll-watcher that is dedicated to killing as many votes as possible from home-bound voters, people in extended-care facilities? I think we can all figure where this is going.

 

[ThomasT]

your vote... might not count?

The notorious Alex Sanders. My comment, in another thread, on your ***sack got me an infraction. But it was funny.

As for votes counting -- well, of course they do. Votes are counted. Therefore, every vote counts.

 

[Galteeth]

Back in 08 I was a poll watcher at my precinct during the primaries. The precinct had three diebold machines. At one point, two of them apparently malfunctioned. The precinct chair called in people from the diebold company who took the two machines offsite to fix them. They brought them back an hour later and said the problem was fixed. Now of course I don't have evidence that anything went down. But the point is, the precinct chair entirely trusted these two guys from the company to take the machines off site about half-way through the polls. No observers were allowed to accompany them. My point is, elections in this country are not particularly secure.

 

[cmb]

Your vote counts as much as anyone else's...

... unless your local legislation permits plural voting (as was permitted in UK until the late 40's).

..Plus, where everyone's vote counts just once, it counts the same as those allowed to vote. It's a bit like saying your dollar is worth the same as everyone else's dollar... providing you're allowed to spend it!

 

[wuliheron]

Congress has an all time low approval rating with the overwhelming number of Americans disapproving of the job they're doing, yet only 10% of house seats have changed parties in the last ten years. If the overwhelming majority's vote counts for so little then why on Earth would I think mine mattered?

The only study I've ever heard of actually done on the subject polled people about whether they intended to vote and if not why, then went back and polled them again after the election. The vast majority of people who said they thought their vote would not make a difference in the election were right. Even if all of them had voted the way they wanted it would have made no difference in the outcome.

Despite so many people insisting on the importance of voting its not like its rocket science. If your vote really counts then it should be possible to easily prove it counts and to give people even bipartisan feedback on exactly how much it counts. The fact that to this day there is no real effort to prove how much voting matters implies that the majority of voters don't want to know the truth and neither party has a stake in the truth being known.

 

[nucl34rgg]

What! No count??

I am literally dying laughing.

 

[turbo]

I am literally dying laughing.

I doubt that.

 

[eggshell]

But that matter is not one that matters, is it (once you've multiplied by electoral votes from the state)?

it matters in the sense that you have a greater chance of assigning electoral votes to your particular candidate, the only votes that matter, as opposed to the reduced likelihood of that happening if you were in a bigger state, regardless of the proportionality.

 

[Hobin]

I doubt that.

Well, it *is* possible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_from_laughter

(Though, granted, not very probable.)

 

[lisab]

I doubt that.

Well, it *is* possible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_from_laughter

(Though, granted, not very probable.)

We haven't heard anything more from nucl34rgg, so...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

... unless your local legislation permits plural voting (as was permitted in UK until the late 40's).

..Plus, where everyone's vote counts just once, it counts the same as those allowed to vote. It's a bit like saying your dollar is worth the same as everyone else's dollar... providing you're allowed to spend it!

I was talking about the US. As for the UK, well, we fought a revolutionary war for good reason.

Here, aside from minors, I think felons are the only people who can't legally vote.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Congress has an all time low approval rating with the overwhelming number of Americans disapproving of the job they're doing, yet only 10% of house seats have changed parties in the last ten years. If the overwhelming majority's vote counts for so little then why on Earth would I think mine mattered?

The only study I've ever heard of actually done on the subject polled people about whether they intended to vote and if not why, then went back and polled them again after the election. The vast majority of people who said they thought their vote would not make a difference in the election were right. Even if all of them had voted the way they wanted it would have made no difference in the outcome.

Despite so many people insisting on the importance of voting its not like its rocket science. If your vote really counts then it should be possible to easily prove it counts and to give people even bipartisan feedback on exactly how much it counts. The fact that to this day there is no real effort to prove how much voting matters implies that the majority of voters don't want to know the truth and neither party has a stake in the truth being known.

I'm completely lost. Are you suggesting voter fraud? You comments here don't make any sense.

 

[wuliheron]

I'm completely lost. Are you suggesting voter fraud? You comments here don't make any sense.

Among other things the US is infamous for turning gerrymandering into a science, the revolving door of congress, million dollar "consultation" fees for congressmen, etc., however, I'm not suggesting anything. I'm stating unequivocally that if the overwhelming majority of voters are dissatisfied with congress yet the seats in the house almost never change party hands then by definition their vote does not count for much. They simply are not getting what they want by their own admission and might as well be banging their heads against the wall for all the demonstrable good voting does them. International studies comparing peoples' attitudes towards their governments suggest much the same thing, that US citizens do not trust their government and are not getting what they want compared to other countries.

In addition, I'm asserting that this isn't rocket science. If the public and politicians insist that voting does matter then its simple enough to prove, but I don't see anyone rushing to fund any studies on just how much of a difference voting makes. Quite the contrary, the only study I've ever seen on the issue suggested voting makes no difference whatsoever. The implication is that neither the public nor politicians want the truth to be known.

 

[collinsmark]

Quite the contrary, the only study I've ever seen on the issue suggested voting makes no difference whatsoever. The implication is that neither the public nor politicians want the truth to be known.

I too am a bit lost by your statements. What particular truth is it to which the public/politicians do not want whom to know?

 

[Alex_Sanders]

Search Diebold machine people. There are a lot entries showing there are a lot people who do not feel quite secure about their votes. And you have to wonder, are those machines made in the states?

 

[wuliheron]

I too am a bit lost by your statements. What particular truth is it to which the public/politicians do not want whom to know?

In case you missed it, this thread is about how much your vote matters.

 

[Galteeth]

Search Diebold machine people. There are a lot entries showing there are a lot people who do not feel quite secure about their votes. And you have to wonder, are those machines made in the states?

http://www.salon.com/2011/09/27/votinghack/
"Voting machines used by as many as a quarter of American voters heading to the polls in 2012 can be hacked with just $10.50 in parts and an 8th grade science education, according to computer science and security experts at the Vulnerability Assessment Team at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois. The experts say the newly developed hack could change voting results while leaving absolutely no trace of the manipulation behind."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold#History

"In August 2003, Walden O'Dell, then the chief executive of Diebold, announced that he had been a top fund-raiser for President George W. Bush and had sent a get-out-the-funds letter to 100 wealthy and politically inclined friends in the Republican Party, to be held at his home in a suburb of Columbus, Ohio.[9]
In December 2005, O'Dell resigned following reports that the company was facing securities fraud litigation surrounding charges of insider trading.[10]
In March 2007, it was reported by the Associated Press that Diebold was considering divesting itself of its voting machine subsidiary because it was "widely seen as tarnishing the company's reputation".[6]
In August 2007, Wikipedia Scanner found that edits via the company's IP addresses occurred to Diebold's Wikipedia article, removing criticisms of the company's products, references to its CEO's fund-raising for President Bush and other negative criticism from the Wikipedia page about the company in November 2005.[11]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_Election_Solutions#Controversy
"Avi Rubin, Professor of Computer Science at Johns Hopkins University and Technical Director of the Information Security Institute has analyzed the source code used in these voting machines and reports "this voting system is far below even the most minimal security standards applicable in other contexts."[6] Following the publication of this paper, the State of Maryland hired Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) to perform another analysis of the Diebold voting machines. SAIC concluded “[t]he system, as implemented in policy, procedure, and technology, is at high risk of compromise.”[7]"

 

[Hobin]

I'm stating unequivocally that if the overwhelming majority of voters are dissatisfied with congress yet the seats in the house almost never change party hands then by definition their vote does not count for much.

That's actually not entirely true. A lot of people like to complain about politicians, because, well, they're politicians (of course, there are a many good reasons as well). However, when the time comes where they'll actually get to vote, most of them will keep voting for the same old people. Thus, while people may be dissatisfied with the politicians currently running the country, this does not necessarily mean their votes don't count.

 

[wuliheron]

That's actually not entirely true. A lot of people like to complain about politicians, because, well, they're politicians (of course, there are a many good reasons as well). However, when the time comes where they'll actually get to vote, most of them will keep voting for the same old people. Thus, while people may be dissatisfied with the politicians currently running the country, this does not necessarily mean their votes don't count.

It's true that most people believe their own congressman is a good choice, but they also believe congress as a whole is worthless. If their congressman has no real impact on the final result it doesn't matter how much they like him, he's worthless and their vote is worthless.

 

[wuliheron]

I'm still not sure where you're going here as it could be taken on several different levels, but there is no doubt in my mind that voting matters. I said from the beginning that a Bush admin would be a disaster and I was right. It was just as bad as I feared it woud be. Neither Gore nor Kerry were anything to get excited about, but I think history would read quite differently had Gore [especially] won in 2000. I am just as sure of that as I was that Bush would be a disaster.

Of course, there is no way to prove how history might have read...

I've already given two examples of how your vote can be worthless. In the survey I mentioned people who said they intended to abstain from voting usually claimed it was because their vote would make no difference in the outcome of the election. Sure enough, the results of the election showed that even if every person had voted it would have made no difference in the outcome. The second example I gave was that even if people like their own congressman, if they don't believe congress as a whole is serving them well their vote becomes meaningless. By their own admission they are not getting the results they were voting for.

Of course, if all you care about is the dog and pony act then by all means keep voting for your favorite dog or pony even if they can't get the job done. If all you care about is the ritual of voting even when it makes no difference in the outcome, then by all means keep voting. My own view is such things are worthless.

In some countries the politicians literally have mock wrestling matches on the floor of the legislature to prove to their constituencies they are fighting for them. In Italy one province elected a hard core porn star to office repeatedly to mock the entire election process. In the US it is now illegal to vote for Mickey Mouse in the state of Maryland because one year he got 1/3 of the vote. Such things are all clear signs of just how worthless people's votes are, but I don't really see anyone promoting any research into the subject. Instead of "pissed off and angry disenfranchised voters" those who abstain are called "apathetic" and instead of people insisting there is proof their vote matters, they keep coming up lame excuses exactly like the ones I'm hearing now for why voting matters.

 

[Galteeth]

I agree that gerrymandering is a problem but I think your premise is flawed. People have a problem with everyone else's representitives, not their own.



I'm still not sure where you're going here as it could be taken on several different levels, but there is no doubt in my mind that voting matters. I said from the beginning that a Bush admin would be a disaster and I was right. It was just as bad as I feared it woud be. Neither Gore nor Kerry were anything to get excited about, but I think history would read quite differently had Gore [especially] won in 2000. I am just as sure of that as I was that Bush would be a disaster.

Of course, there is no way to prove how history might have read...

A good example of the fact that voting does matter to an extent is the recent SOPA protest. The reason politicians backed down was because the public response was so overwhelming. They care about this precisely because they can be voted out.

The idea of voting could be seen at least to be something of a check on very unpopular laws.

 

[wuliheron]

A good example of the fact that voting does matter to an extent is the recent SOPA protest. The reason politicians backed down was because the public response was so overwhelming. They care about this precisely because they can be voted out.

The idea of voting could be seen at least to be something of a check on very unpopular laws.

This year congress seriously debated whether or not they should be allowed to vote on legislation concerning companies they own stock in and whether or not to suspend habeas corpus. They've indefinitely suspended parts of the constitution, passed secret laws that were not available for public scrutiny, invaded peoples' privacy as never before, and last year NYC arrested 26 reporters in one day on trumped up charges to prevent them from covering OWS. About the only thing SOPA proves is that sometimes, just sometimes, they are willing to appease the mob by publicly encouraging them to give a thumbs up or down.

 

[JonDE]

"Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it."
- Mahatma Gandhi

 

[wuliheron]

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mahatma Gandhi

 

[ThomasT]

Electing candidates via middle persons (electoral college, etc.) should be done away with, imho. It makes no sense to me to give all the votes from a state to one candidate if the popular vote is almost evenly split. It makes no sense to me that a candidate with fewer popular votes can win an election.

I think that doing away with that sort of thing, and doing away with gerrymandering and other practices that legally but sometimes questionably skew the control of election results away from the actual vote of the populace, might precipitate a feeling among a vast number of Americans (who choose not to vote because they feel that their vote doesn't count) that their vote actually does count.

One of the big problems with the legislature, imho, is that you have career politicians who're able to gain inordinate power because of the absence of term limits.

Anyway, I think I have a certain understanding of why someone would feel that their vote doesn't count. But the thing is, unless one is part of a mass 'nonvoting' movement aimed at making a mass statement that professional politicians can't ignore, then it makes no sense to not vote. However, if one is interested in helping to bring about changes in the status quo, then the best course of action, imho, is to vote for candidates other than Republicans and Democrats.

 

[Galteeth]

Electing candidates via middle persons (electoral college, etc.) should be done away with, imho. It makes no sense to me to give all the votes from a state to one candidate if the popular vote is almost evenly split. It makes no sense to me that a candidate with fewer popular votes can win an election.

I think that doing away with that sort of thing, and doing away with gerrymandering and other practices that legally but sometimes questionably skew the control of election results away from the actual vote of the populace, might precipitate a feeling among a vast number of Americans (who choose not to vote because they feel that their vote doesn't count) that their vote actually does count.

One of the big problems with the legislature, imho, is that you have career politicians who're able to gain inordinate power because of the absence of term limits.

Anyway, I think I have a certain understanding of why someone would feel that their vote doesn't count. But the thing is, unless one is part of a mass 'nonvoting' movement aimed at making a mass statement that professional politicians can't ignore, then it makes no sense to not vote. However, if one is interested in helping to bring about changes in the status quo, then the best course of action, imho, is to vote for candidates other than Republicans and Democrats.

A state doesn't have to be winner-take all for the electoral college, but that's exactly what every state does. I have a theory that the political parties like the winner take all system, because it means they have to spend less resources for the presidential election.

"It makes no sense to me that a candidate with fewer popular votes can win an election."
Do you understand the theory behind it?

 

[Galteeth]

This year congress seriously debated whether or not they should be allowed to vote on legislation concerning companies they own stock in and whether or not to suspend habeas corpus. They've indefinitely suspended parts of the constitution, passed secret laws that were not available for public scrutiny, invaded peoples' privacy as never before, and last year NYC arrested 26 reporters in one day on trumped up charges to prevent them from covering OWS. About the only thing SOPA proves is that sometimes, just sometimes, they are willing to appease the mob by publicly encouraging them to give a thumbs up or down.

I don't think congress encouraged people to "give a thumbs up or down" on SOPA.

I am anarchist. I despise government. I think the concept of democracy and voting in the context of a state is absurd. But voting does have some effect.

Also, as far as NYC goes, we don't vote for the cops. Maybe if we did, they would behave a bit more reasonably. I am not going to go that far, but it is interesting to note that the portion of the government that does not have to face the ballot box behaves the most recklessly and cares the least what people think about their actions.

 

[Hobin]

but it is interesting to note that the portion of the government that does not have to face the ballot box behaves the most recklessly and cares the least what people think about their actions.

And you know this how? That just seems to be an overgeneralization without anything to support it to me.

 

[russ_watters]

Instead of "pissed off and angry disenfranchised voters" those who abstain are called "apathetic" and instead of people insisting there is proof their vote matters, they keep coming up lame excuses exactly like the ones I'm hearing now for why voting matters.

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.