Votes Today - Did yours cancel out with your family members?

[Krystedez]

Link to original post: [drupal=5438]Votes Today - Did yours cancel out with your family members?[/drupal]



So I went to vote today.

I feel like I should have just stayed at home...

I voted a split ticket ofc like I always do but... me and my dad's votes canceled eachother out in regards to the Presidency. AGAIN.

Just feels like a waste. I don't like either candidates. But voting libertarian or write-in doesn't answer between A or B (which I hate anyways but still...)

Have any of you canceled out with your family's vote today or even yesterday early voting? Will you cancel out? Or will you just vote and get it over with and not worry about it?

My grandparents' votes canceled each out last year as well, and I almost wanna bet 50 bucks to my DAD that they did it again.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Well, votes don't really cancel each other out in that way. Your individual votes each go towards the total for your respective candidates, and that total determines how the electoral votes in your state are awarded. You've both helped your candidates by voting, and you don't really affect each other.

As a side not, I think that we get a little too worked up over the two-party system (or the "A or B" choice as you described it). True, we have two major parties, but those parties basically serve as big tents, and there is at least as much variety within each party as there is between each party.

For example, every Republican is not the same. You have your fiscal conservatives, your social issue Republicans, libertarians, and moderate Republicans. Likewise, with the Democrats you have liberals, Blue Dogs, environmentalists, moderate Democrats etc. If we had a parliamentary system of government, all those groups would probably be separate parties, who would then have to come together to form a coalition and appoint a Prime Minister. But we don't, and instead all of those factions have formed their coalitions beforehand, and we call those coalitions Democrats and Republicans.

You may only be choosing between Dems and the GOP, but we have primaries so that you can decide which kind of Dem or Republican you want to vote for. This is ultimately why third parties don't work in the US, because they're fighting against their own best interests by leaving their coalitions. The Green Party (or the Libertarian Party, or any third party) would be much better served trying to influence their coalition from the inside than throw rocks from the outside.

At least that's how I see it.

EDIT- It might be interesting if coalition partners in the US could withdraw and bring down governments, but I suspect if that were possible here we'd end up looking alot like Italy.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I see little point in voting in my state. Alabama is going to go republican as always. Dang this democracy is wack.

 

[Deleted member]

@Holder of the Heel: Well you're certainly not doing yourself a favor by abstaining from voting. Yes a Romey win in Alabama is inevitable, but voting is a responsibility and there are other officials to vote as well.

 

[Jon Farron]

They really need to change the voting system. They need to make it so every individual vote count, instead of states, because what one state wants isn't always what the majority wants. Take Texas for example, they always vote republican, but if 26 states vote democrat and only 24 states republican, that's not an accurate total of what America wants because Texas is the second most populated state.

 

[Luigitoilet]

vote for skrillex

 

[Ganonsburg]

They really need to change the voting system. They need to make it so every individual vote count, instead of states, because what one state wants isn't always what the majority wants. Take Texas for example, they always vote republican, but if 26 states vote democrat and only 24 states republican, that's not an accurate total of what America wants because Texas is the second most populated state.

That's not how it works. Yes, the states are the ones that vote for president, but each state's opinion is weighted according to population (mostly). Each state gets 1 vote for each senator (every state has 2 senators) and then 1 vote for each representative (the number of representatives being directly proportional to the population, roughly). So each state gets a minimum of 3 votes, but the more populous states get more votes. ex, Texas has 38 votes, California has 55, Delaware gets 3, etc. So it's roughly fair, but not completely because the system was designed to give smaller states a larger say than they deserve, so they wouldn't be neglected altogether. More on the electoral college.


Jam, that is a beautiful description of our two party system.

To the OP, I didn't cancel out my family's vote, as we're all very like-minded. Even in my county, we're all very Republican. However, my state is die-hard Democratic, so our votes ultimately doesn't do anything with respect to the president. But it's still important to vote, and not be disillusioned into not voting.

 

[SharkAttack]

I voted for Gary Johnson, and I'm 90% positive my Mom did as well. No vote cancelling for the Presidential race here. We almost always fall in line together. I'm not really sure how things will shake up here in Ohio. I believe a vote for Johnson would hurt Romney and help Obama in Ohio, but I'm not sure exactly because I know of people who voted for Obama in 2008 who have switched to Johnson. It might possibly be a tossup on whether or not a vote for Gary Johnson hurts or helps Romney. All I know is Ohio is going to be interesting when it is all over.

 

[Jon Farron]

That's not how it works. Yes, the states are the ones that vote for president, but each state's opinion is weighted according to population (mostly). Each state gets 1 vote for each senator (every state has 2 senators) and then 1 vote for each representative (the number of representatives being directly proportional to the population, roughly). So each state gets a minimum of 3 votes, but the more populous states get more votes. ex, Texas has 38 votes, California has 55, Delaware gets 3, etc. So it's roughly fair, but not completely because the system was designed to give smaller states a larger say than they deserve, so they wouldn't be neglected altogether. More on the electoral college.

Thanks lol, I knew it was something like that but wasn't sure exactly. Thanks for the info.

 

[Melomaniacal]

Some of the things being said here scare me. I wish more people understood how elections work here.

 

[Luigitoilet]

Some of the things being said here scare me. I wish more people understood how elections work here.

why not kick some knowledge then? progress doesn't begin with "you guys are ********, i wish you knew things.". at least drop a link or something

 

[Ramen King]

I don't even know how you could think this way?

-2
-1
0
+1
+2

Let's Assume the cancel out thing, which as Stunna already pointed out isn't exactly right. If you didn't vote, then the net result would be -1. You wanted your net result to be +1, but increasing that -1 to 0 is just the same as say increasing your result from 0 to +1. There are other people voting you know... not just your family >.> Say someone in the other household voted +1. Even though you and your dad's votes have a +0, with your neighbors vote you are now at +1. If you didn't vote, then the net of your household and your neighbors would be 0. And if your neighbor didn't vote, then the net of your household and your neighbors would be at -1, because your dad would have been the only one that voted. I don't see how you could logically feel that your vote didn't matter with that regard.

 

[Falconv1.0]

I see little point in voting in my state. Alabama is going to go republican as always. Dang this democracy is wack.

Oh man, your state leans more towards one side than the other. That's so ****ing whack, bro. How exactly do you think this **** counts? Did you just ignore Jam's post? Are you some kind of stupid person?

Is this real life?

 

[Jimnymebob]

For example, every Republican is not the same. You have your fiscal conservatives, your social issue Republicans, libertarians, and moderate Republicans. Likewise, with the Democrats you have liberals, Blue Dogs, environmentalists, moderate Democrats etc. If we had a parliamentary system of government, all those groups would probably be separate parties, who would then have to come together to form a coalition and appoint a Prime Minister. But we don't, and instead all of those factions have formed their coalitions beforehand, and we call those coalitions Democrats and Republicans.

Yeah, that's what it's like over here in the UK, 3 major parties (two centre-left and one centre-right I think, I'm not good with political details), with about 10 smaller parties. We vote for our local MP, not for the person we want as Prime Minister, and the votes tally from across the country, and whoever gets the most seats in Parliament wins, although last election there had to be a coalition government.

I'm probably talking rubbish here but I'm sure that's what it is.

I'm not sure which system I prefer to be honest. I like the idea of voting for the actual leader of the country, but I think the fact that you can vote for an MP and your constituency can have an MP separate to the party that wins the general election.

 

[Luigitoilet]

here's a cool graph showcasing all/most of the possibilities this election can take and what is needed for each candidate to win

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/02/us/politics/paths-to-the-white-house.html

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Oh man, your state leans more towards one side than the other. That's so ****ing whack, bro. How exactly do you think this **** counts? Did you just ignore Jam's post? Are you some kind of stupid person?

Is this real life?

For one thing, we posted within the exact same minute, actually look dude. Secondly, I'm speaking about how poor the system is from a democratic standpoint.

What is the malfunction here exactly? Is this real life?

 

[GreenKirby]

My family are Democrats.

And I'm further to the left than my family.

So I'm gonna say..... maybe?

 

[Holder of the Heel]

here's a cool graph showcasing all/most of the possibilities this election can take and what is needed for each candidate to win

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/02/us/politics/paths-to-the-white-house.html

Thanks for sharing, that is incredibly interesting.

Took a look at Florida, I'm interested to see what is going happen with that.

 

[Ganonsburg]

For one thing, we posted within the exact same minute, actually look dude. Secondly, I'm speaking about how poor the system is from a democratic standpoint.

What is the malfunction here exactly? Is this real life?

We're not exactly a democratic nation. We're a democratic republic. That second part is very important, and explains why we have the electoral college and the two party system and likely will to the day this nation dies.

 

[Melomaniacal]

why not kick some knowledge then? progress doesn't begin with "you guys are ********, i wish you knew things.". at least drop a link or something

Because it has already been addressed, thankfully.

 

[---]

Bah I voted last month with my absentee ballot, I just want this election to be over with. I honestly don't like either candidate.

Anyway if it maybe cheers some people up, here's a video about what will happen if the other party wins.

 

[Teran]

I voted for Henry Kissinger.

 

[Falconv1.0]

For one thing, we posted within the exact same minute, actually look dude. Secondly, I'm speaking about how poor the system is from a democratic standpoint.

You're speaking about how poor the system is by pointing out that your area has more votes on the Republican side.

Uhuh.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

o_o Let me explain it to you Falcon.

By the states treating themselves as democratic ends in themselves in the election, it distorts the general will of the people, the aim of a democracy (I understand that we aren't 100% one). It also ultimately discourages me who would vote Obama because I already know the outcome of what my state is going to do.


But okay, your inference from what I've said works too.

 

[GwJ]

Voted Obama, split the ticket for the most part. Voted like 1/3 Democrat, 1/3 Republican, 1/3 Libertarian

 

[Falconv1.0]

By the states treating themselves as democratic ends in themselves in the election, it distorts the general will of the people, the aim of a democracy (I understand that we aren't 100% one). It also ultimately discourages me who would vote Obama because I already know the outcome of what my state is going to do.

Man it's as if someone already addressed this and now Falcon's going to make it bold

Well, votes don't really cancel each other out in that way. Your individual votes each go towards the total for your respective candidates, and that total determines how the electoral votes in your state are awarded. You've both helped your candidates by voting, and you don't really affect each other.

As a side not, I think that we get a little too worked up over the two-party system (or the "A or B" choice as you described it). True, we have two major parties, but those parties basically serve as big tents, and there is at least as much variety within each party as there is between each party.

You have a ****ing stupid reason for being discouraged. The idea that your state voting republican cancels out your vote just doesn't work and if you really think that's how the general will of the people is distorted you're still full of ****. Your state leans more republican, it's going to vote Republican, whoop de ****ing doo, somehow making it a direct democracy would not fix that. It would still be on the side of Republicans. I am not confused as to what your point was, I didn't need further explaining. Your idea of why things are "whack" just doesn't work.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

This keeps going over your head.

I'm saying a selection of popular vote is more democratic and superior than the system we have in place.

I said nothing of canceling my vote out with anyone. O__o

If you aren't going to be comprehensive at least be civil about it.

 

[Falconv1.0]

This keeps going over your head.

I'm saying a selection of popular vote is more democratic and superior than the system we have in place.

I said nothing of canceling my vote out with anyone. O__o

If you aren't going to be comprehensive at least be civil about it.

You have yet to explain how it is "poor" from a "democratic standpoint". Your complaint was that your state will vote Republican, the exact ****ing quote was "I see little point in voting in my state. Alabama is going to go republican as always. Dang this democracy is wack."

And if it voted republican every time without the electoral college system? Do you even understand the electoral system? My entire point was that your vote is not somehow less valuable, you should still vote. If you don't think your vote isn't being cancelled out because the state votes republican what in the **** is discouraging you?

 

[Teran]

Like what is the point.

Does voting even matter?

Why are we here?

Does the grass really exist?

Are we really real?

What is the meaning of black?

 

[Tacket]

Teran should go back to being the HULKSTER!

And I voted Obama.

 

[Krystedez]

Well I mean I thought the reason a vote between two candidates being capable of being canceled out by another's vote by single household alone is the fact that the two are +1 for both candidates. 118,024 votes at 10AM today for Obama (made up number) vs 120,432 votes for Romney (made up number), both get a +1 from my household, therefore nothing changed except the numbers, now 118,025, and 120,433.

But I guess it DOES make sense from the following standpoint:

if I HADN'T voted but my DAD did, then yes my not voting made a difference. If he HADN'T voted but I did, then his not voting made a difference.

Idk I just feel kinda awkward having a direct difference in sense of politics with my father who I have the most in common with. I feel "bad" you could say for my father. But he accepts it. He thinks it's important I voted at all regardless.

 

[Deleted member]

Semi-related: Pay close attention to this: http://www.bing.com/elections/

Mitt Romney: 153
Barack Obama: 123

It's gonna be a close one.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

The point of democracy is to support the majority, the greatest will of the people. If presidents can win without having the popular vote, which happens, that is by definition not democratic. It is as Ganonsburg said, we're just not entirely democratic.

You're anger and argument is an enigma to me, but if you want to release some rage, you can use me I guess. I'm sorry you're so upset about life and stuff.

 

[Shorts]

I voted to stay home and forcefully miscarriage my baby. I'm just not ready to be a mom.

 

[Deleted member]

@Holder of the Heel: So if Obama wins this election with less popular votes than Romney but with more electoral vote, you should be complaining about Obama's reelection.

...aren't you the same person that supports Obama's reelection?

Also, it's impossible for us to be an completely democratic nation (we're actually a representative democracy). The only one that could possibly handle a direct democracy nationally are very small countires. Direct democracy does exist in the US at the local level, however.

 

[Luigitoilet]

 

[Vinylic.]

Obama's vote count just skyrocketed out of nowhere and went over romney's.

 

[DJ Arcatek]

California.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Holder would you stop avoiding my question when it comes to why you're discouraged from voting after claiming you don't think your vote is being cancelled out. So do you think your vote means nothing because it's a republican state or not? Also just because we're not a pure democracy that does not somehow make our system inferior. We didn't just pull it out of our ***.

I'm sorry you're so upset about life and stuff.

Don't mock me with **** like that or imply I'm buttmad irl and thus need to take it out on you. I'm calling you out on your ****ty position. Well, was calling you out, now I'm done because I've said just about everything I could say and you're not actually backing up your position.

 

[Deleted member]

@Kawaii Vinyl: Probably because Obama should be guarantee a win in California, given that California leans far left.