Does your vote in 2020 really matter- most likely not

[columbus]

No doubt. But in my state I have a bit of a luxury. The Democratic candidate will almost certainly win. That allows me to voice some disapproval if appropriate. But if is at all close I will vote Democratic. I may vote third party if I cannot stand the Democratic candidate, but only if the election is safe.

Or, if your kid is sick and you already have to shoehorn a doctor visit into your work schedule, and the polling place is half an hour away, then you have to wait another hour for the staff to check your ID and such, you may decide that real life takes precedence over a vanity vote.
Tom

 

[Milton Platt]

Does your vote in 2020 really matter- most likely not

USA 1016 election

Here are the final numbers:
Clinton received 65,844,610 votes, or 48.2% of the total vote.
Trump received 62,979,636 votes, or 46.1% of the total vote. (That's a difference of 2.86 million votes.)
Here is the final popular vote count of the 2016 election just in case you want to feel bad

It was the Electoral College that got Trump into the White House, not the U.S. citizens vote.

So folks, it matters not how you vote but if you don’t vote you have no say in the matter.

Are You Going To Vote & why

Thanks in advance

-

Yes, I always vote. Because however small a thing it may be, it is the only voice I have.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I said yes and no. I will vote for every office except the top of the ticket (POTUS) as long as the electoral college remains. Unless one day I move to a swing state.

 

[Shad]

I'm an outsider but...

Changing the Constitution is okay. Indeed, I think it's possible to work within the Constitution but still select the President based on popular vote.

It is removing a founding article not an amendment.

Were I a small state (like Nevada recently) I'd be thinking twice about supporting a nationwide popular vote model.
I don't see what's in it for them?

Every state in the middle of the nation will have this issue.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It is removing a founding article not an amendment.

Noted. Still think it's possible to work within the existing Constitutional framework.

Every state in the middle of the nation will have this issue.

Agreed. I haven't heard a lot of nuanced conversation about it (just for or against). Is that a fair comment, or just the result of me getting access to a subset of information (being on the other side of the planet)?

 

[Shad]

Noted. Still think it's possible to work within the existing Constitutional framework.

It can be done via an amendment or convention of states. However it must be ratified by 38 states to become law. I think there are enough GOP states to block it. I still think it would cause a revolt of some kinda not a conventional war.

Agreed. I haven't heard a lot of nuanced conversation about it (just for or against).

It is pretty clear that the USA is a union of sovereign nations by name, Constitution and history. I think the issue is that most people think the NV is just a legislative issue. It is turning a Republic into a Democracy and lower the status of States to administrative divides with reduced power. Toss in the balance of power shift far more towards the Federal level. There would a lot of laws which would become questionable such as commence between states due to reduce power. Taxes and wage laws which have differences at the state level and federal. There is already disputed between federal and states. So obviously there are questions if federal wins out due to changes down the road.


Also there are issues which plague parliamentary systems which was a point to avoid as per the FFs.

Is that a fair comment, or just the result of me getting access to a subset of information (being on the other side of the planet)?

Sure. Like I said I do no think a lot of people understand that the NV is nation changing. Really a lot of discussions focus on majority vote issues; Will of the People vs Tyranny of the Majority. There isn't a lot to saw about either points as both are limited in direct content. All either side seems to do is reference historical examples.

 

[Poisonshady313]

It is turning a Republic into a Democracy and lower the status of States to administrative divides with reduced power.

Is it really though? Why? How? If the singular act of electing the president of the united states is counted according to the voters' votes, and not the votes of a virtually anonymous, disposable committee of partisan hacks who represent their party and not their state nor the wishes of the people within that state (nor even themselves, given the policy of winner take all, and several states with laws prohibiting faithless electors)... how does that do anything to change the structure or function of the states for any or all other purposes?

Using a direct national popular vote to elect the president doesn't mean that the people will be voting on legislation. Why isn't the existence of Congress enough to show that we are a republic and not a democracy?

 

[Shad]

Is it really though?

Yes.

Why?

NV is a part of a direct democracy not a republic by the US definition.

How?

As per the Constitution article 2 and 4 States are sovereign nations in a Federation; USA. The Federal system was created to handle foreign relations and disputes between States. The EC is the method of those States selecting a POTUS. States not the US population were promised a republic form of government. Such a change would be removing that promise. It would be removing a right of States by tyranny of the majority which the FF warned about thus validating the point. The US Constitution does not create rights but binds thus restricts government from suppressing rights. For example voters right amendments were create to stop the suppression of voters in States by State laws not overturning a Federal Law itself.

If the singular act of electing the president of the united states is counted according to the voters' votes, and not the votes of a virtually anonymous, disposable committee of partisan hacks who represent their party and not their state nor the wishes of the people within that state (nor even themselves, given the policy of winner take all, and several states with laws prohibiting faithless electors)... how does that do anything to change the structure or function of the states for any or all other purposes?

I hope you are not an American

Again it would change what a State actually is in the Constitution. United STATES of America not State. If these States are united it means they have some sort of authority thus sovereignty within the Federal system. If you look at history Statehood was voted on via an application. It was not created by edict

Using a direct national popular vote to elect the president doesn't mean that the people will be voting on legislation.

Except it undermines article 2 and 4 as what a State is thus the purpose of the Senate. If you look at non-American systems one of the Houses of Parliament (Senate or House) is not elected at all.W

Why is the Senate State based with 2 seats a piece if States are not consider equal unlike the House?

Why isn't the existence of Congress enough to show that we are a republic and not a democracy?

By definition of the Constitution and structure of the the Upper House and method of POTUS elections. Also basic US history.

 

[tayla]

It was the Electoral College that got Trump into the White House, not the U.S. citizens vote.

Technically, the voters elected the president via the election rules which includes the Electoral College. Every voting system has weird side effects.

I'm personally not fond of the Electoral College. It doesn't even accomplish what it was intended for.