How do you feel about your vote NOT actually counting during a Presidential election?

SPC(P) Jay Heenan — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 14:58:39 -0400

There has (and will be) tons of talk about the 2016 Presidential Election. It is generally the same things over and over...someone making more promises to more people than he/she could ever make good on. We, as Americans, fail miserably on keeping our public servants accountable to us, but that is a whole different discussion. So with all of this talk about who everyone will vote for in the upcoming Presidential election, my question is do you know that our votes might NOT count at all? The President and the Vice President are elected by the Electoral College, not by popular vote. This has happened four times in our great nations history. First was in 1824, John Quincy Adams. The second was in 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes. The third was in 1888, Benjamin Harrison. The last one was more recent in our history, it was in 2000, when George W. Bush beat Al Gore by 5 electoral College votes even when Al Gore had 540,000 more popular votes.

How do you feel about this? Not how you feel politically, but do you feel that your voice is heard? Ideally, the Electoral College vote should mirror its constituents wishes. This is our system, created by our founding fathers, and should stress the importance of voting for your Senators and Congressmen (or Congresswomen).

Response by LTC Stephen C. made Jun 29 at 2015 3:06 PM

LTC Stephen C. — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 15:06:28 -0400

SPC(P) Jay Heenan, I always vote. That's essentially the only way my voice will be heard.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jun 29 at 2015 3:14 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 15:14:56 -0400

Direct representation has advantages and flaws.

When we speak of 540,000 popular votes, that is out of 320,000,000 (.16%) which is although significant quantitatively, is not qualitatively, even if you just account for the People who actually voted.

The major problem with direct popular representation is that it turns into a "Most Populous State Wins" issue, and completely removes the power from smaller states.

The Electoral College tempers those two issues. Now we have "swing states" because every vote counts and the ability to shift a dozen EC Votes a pop can make or break a campaign.

Response by PO1 Dustin Adams made Jun 29 at 2015 3:34 PM

PO1 Dustin Adams — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 15:34:06 -0400

I think the system would work better if the "popular winner take all EC's" was abolished and go back to singular EC votes.

Response by MAJ Jim Steven made Jun 29 at 2015 3:34 PM

MAJ Jim Steven — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 15:34:26 -0400

this may not address the question asked, but an observation I wanted to share...
I see elections being similar to reality/talent shows where you can text/call in a vote. You vote, you get all excited when your 'talent' wins...they win the show and the prizes, you dont win anything, but yet are still so excited.
People are throwing support behind both Hilarry and Donald...what is your gain if they win??

Response by CW4 Pam Collins made Jun 29 at 2015 3:38 PM

CW4 Pam Collins — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 15:38:10 -0400

This has always bothered me. In today's day and age, with automation the way it is, it should be that difficult to count popular votes. Conversely, because of hacking and fraud, it may be easier to "fix" an election. Since is it such a rare occurrence to have the Electorial College vote in contradiction to the popular vote, perhaps it should stay put.

Response by Sgt Packy Flickinger made Jun 29 at 2015 4:49 PM

Sgt Packy Flickinger — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 16:49:36 -0400

The last election was such a joke. Voting machines in 22 states were found to be changing votes to Obama yet not a single thing was done about it. Mail in ballots weren't counted. Poll workers were caught voting for other people. Illegals were caught bringing large amounts of ballots also. Then of course there is the dead voting. They should have had another election with all the fraud.

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Jun 29 at 2015 7:22 PM

MSgt James Mullis — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 19:22:30 -0400

Remember what Joe Stalin had to say about democracy and voting: 'It doesn't matter who votes, it matters who counts the votes.'

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2015 7:38 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 19:38:52 -0400

I think the electoral college should be proportiional not winner take all. 3 or 4 small states do that already. Perhaps make APO/FPO locations get some electors as well (unless they vote with their home state.)

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jun 29 at 2015 9:17 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 21:17:57 -0400

Absolutely useless. RI is historically a Democratic state so voting Republican never means anything because both our electoral college votes go to the Democrats.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2015 9:45 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 21:45:55 -0400

Never voted ever. Never been a candidate that made me think, "yeah- this guy is it!" Not that my vote would ever make a shred of difference. Someone prove me wrong. I'm stationed in Oklahoma- center of the republican black hole of common sense. Absentee ballots? Riiiight.

Response by LTC Kevin B. made Jun 29 at 2015 10:08 PM

LTC Kevin B. — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 22:08:14 -0400

I don't have a problem with the electoral college system. I do have a problem with states trying to tinker with the electoral college in an attempt to tilt the system towards one party or the other.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 30 at 2015 1:46 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 13:46:32 -0400

I find it odd that we cannot get a reliable, secure automated voting system. We trust our ATMs with our money. We trust bank websites with our investments. We trust eBay and PayPal with our credit card information. We trust the SSA website with our SSN and income information. But we can't come up with a voting machine we can rely on?
Smells of politics rather than reality. Make the machines all operate on a private network protected by some crypto devices. If its good enough for the DoD it should be good enough for elections.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 30 at 2015 9:34 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 21:34:53 -0400

Your real voice in government is your Representative, not the president. Once that is recognized, gerrymandering becomes a much more vicious enemy to republican democracy than the electoral college.

Response by SPC George Rudenko made Jun 30 at 2015 10:32 PM

SPC George Rudenko — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 22:32:36 -0400

Did you know that only 6% of the population of Ferguson MO voted in the last election? Apathy? Don't care? Don't have time?

Are we there where we have the democracy, and nobody cares anymore?

Response by COL Ted Mc made Jul 1 at 2015 2:42 AM

COL Ted Mc — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 02:42:10 -0400

SPC(P) Jay Heenan - Spec; The way that the "Founding Fathers" originally intended the Electoral College to work was for a select bunch of "the right people" to get together and decide - without any reference to the hoi poloi - who the next President would be.

The "Founding Fathers" would have been absolutely APPALLED at any suggestion that the President of the United States of America should be elected by direct vote of ALL adults (regardless of level of wealth, literacy, or knowledge).

PS - Legally there is absolutely nothing stopping the Electoral College from electing Charles Manson as the President of the United States of America even though his name wasn't on any ballot and he didn't receive a single vote.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Jul 1 at 2015 2:59 AM

COL Ted Mc — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 02:59:46 -0400

If you want to consider an alternative, why not have the Senate membership selected by "Proportional Representation" with Senators serving 10 year terms and 10 of them being replaced every year and the party makeup then adjusted to more closely reflect the average of the last three elections for the House of Representatives.

The saving on campaign expenses alone would be significant and the political parties would be able to select people of proven intelligence, knowledge, and competence to go on their "list". [I won't even mention the benefits of the decrease in assaults on the average American's intelligence, sight, or hearing resulting from a complete elimination of any electioneering for the Senate.]

If the Republicans and the Democrats each consistently polled 45% nationally and the Jedi Party consistently polled 10% nationally, after ten years there would be 45 Republican Senators, 45 Democrat Senators and 10 Jedi Senators. That wouldn't mean that the Jedi would be running things, but it would mean that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats would be in total control either and that each of them would have to give some attention to what the other (and the Jedi) wanted if they wanted to get anything done.

PS - To get things back even closer to what the "Founding Fathers" originally intended, every Senator would be provided with suitable accommodation (say a two bedroom apartment) and meal passes at some "$" or"$$" rated restaurants (with a minimal amount of "$$$"s thrown in for special occasions), public transit passes, $50.00 per day "pocket money", "standard sized" government offices (including all office equipment and supplies, and a staff of four (hired and paid by the Civil Service). [This would encourage the Senators to get down to work, get their work done, and get back home so that they could resume their normal (probably quite lucrative) lifestyle - the way that the "Founding Fathers" originally intended.]

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jul 1 at 2015 3:10 AM

PO1 John Miller — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 03:10:39 -0400

I have been saying this for years: The Electoral College is obsolete and needs to be abolished, making the Presidential Election a truly popular vote giving everyone a truly equal voice.

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Jul 1 at 2015 1:46 PM

1LT Aaron Barr — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 13:46:44 -0400

The Federal government isn't merely a compact between itself and the people, it's also a compact between itself and the states. Presidential elections aren't a nationwide election but 50 separate state-wide elections. The reason for this was to prevent candidates from being able to just go to a few large states while riding roughshod over the smaller ones.

That said, I would like to see the Electoral College be reformed somewhat. Under our current system, each state gets a number of electors equivalent to the number of Representatives and Senators it has in Congress. Rather than the current system, in which most states are winner takes all, I'd like to see the 2 Senator electors go to the candidate that wins the overall popular vote in each state with the rest divided proportional to the overall popular vote.

For example, I'm from Pennsylvania, which has 20 Electoral Votes. Barack Obama won the state 52-47% and got all 20 of those votes. Under the system I'd propose, Obama would've gotten 12 (10 of the 18 plus the 2 Senate votes) and Romney 8. I think if we had a system like this it would make Presidential races more competitive and more representative of the nation as a whole.

Sadly, this probably won't happen or it will for the wrong reasons. States that are close and where the party that loses the Presidential election controls the state government, such as PA again, might be persuaded to do this but they wouldn't in Texas any more than Democrats would in California. Sad, really.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Jul 8 at 2015 7:57 PM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Wed, 08 Jul 2015 19:57:11 -0400

I don't know that my vote has ever counted in a Primary. With the way that system works, with the dates all over the calendar, you have to live in one of the early states to have your vote count...

Regarding the actual election, while there have been cases of mismatch between the Electoral and Popular votes, those are rare, and hopefully will never again hang on chads, fostered by mis-management of votes, gerrymandering, etc.