Quote:
Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant
It works the other way; Your vote don't matter because you didn't vote.
It does not matter what the rest of the electorate vote for, what matters is what you vote for. Because the electorate is made up of individual humans. Individual humans like you.
But by not voting, you deliberately remove yourself from the electorate.
Are you saying you would only vote if you get to decide who wins? Then it is hardly a democracy.
And finally, I fail to see the difference between local elections, propositions and federal elections. In none of these cases could you guarantee any influence at all. You have one vote, like everyone else. And votes win elections.
|
What you're missing is that the presidential election is handled differently than local election, state elections, or even congressional elections -- all of which are decided by POPULAR vote and therefore every vote matters.
With the Presidential election.... it is completely possible to win the popular vote and lose the election because of the electoral college process. California doesn't deliver "100million votes" to the process, it delivers 55 votes as a block. If the state is consistently 60%DEM, 39%GOP and 1%OTHER.... it will deliver all 55 E.C. votes to the DEMs.
Its not hard to see why a vote for the Green Party might seem pointless at the presidential level.
I've only been able to watch and read excerpts of the debate, but I want to ask the Americans on this board something.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mentar
If I'm not mistaken, the FOX hosts were asking if there was a chance to pass legislation on a ratio of 10$ spending cuts to 1$ tax increases, whether or not they'd agree with that. And not a single candidate said he would go for that.
Is this how you feel, too? In the light of the extreme structural deficits?
|
There's very very few Americans that actually are that extreme... the thing that the hosts left out is that any tax increases (or more accurately - expiration of tax loopholes and welfare/subsidies for the rich) would be targeted and unlikely to apply to the
working classes. ((and these days, anyone making under $500K a year is probably a "working class peasant").
Its insane to look at cuts without looking at revenue dysfunctions (broken tax code) or re-prioritization.