ForumGarden

Sorry, but it was proven months ago that my vote DOESN'T count.

And at this point, while I may have an opinion on a Presidential candidate, I don't trust a soul running for office. It really must be part of the DNA make-up of a political candidate to lie like a rug to get into office. They will all say what the people of their party want to hear to get that paycheck and those perks. Once their fat ass is in that seat - the only thing they care about is getting as much for free as they can and keeping the seat.

LilacDragon;1016637 wrote: Sorry, but it was proven months ago that my vote DOESN'T count.

And at this point, while I may have an opinion on a Presidential candidate, I don't trust a soul running for office. It really must be part of the DNA make-up of a political candidate to lie like a rug to get into office. They will all say what the people of their party want to hear to get that paycheck and those perks. Once their fat ass is in that seat - the only thing they care about is getting as much for free as they can and keeping the seat. i don't think any one's vote counts today. except if they are a big important lobbyist:mad:

sunny104;1015149 wrote: I'm moving to Mexico!


If you do, you better have your identication papers in order. I've heard that Mexico is stricter than America is. ;)

As far as votes counting:

The Electoral College was useful when America was a largely agricultural country with large expanses separating individuals residences and a lack of rapid transportation and mass communication.

The principal was that a representative of a number of residents in a given geographical area would cast a ballot reflecting the majority vote of said citizens.

This works well as long as the elector actually casts the ballot of the majority (which BTW is NOT required of them). Failure to do so allows for a candidate to win the popular vote but lose the election.

Today we have the means to count each and every individual vote in a timely and accurate fashion which renders the Electoral College moot.

Although the USA is a representative republic the elections of it's officials should be as was intended and allowed to be by the purest of democratic principals.....one citizen, one vote.

Flamethrower;1017512 wrote: As far as votes counting:

The Electoral College was useful when America was a largely agricultural country with large expanses separating individuals residences and a lack of rapid transportation and mass communication.

The principal was that a representative of a number of residents in a given geographical area would cast a ballot reflecting the majority vote of said citizens.

This works well as long as the elector actually casts the ballot of the majority (which BTW is NOT required of them). Failure to do so allows for a candidate to win the popular vote but lose the election.

Today we have the means to count each and every individual vote in a timely and accurate fashion which renders the Electoral College moot.

Although the USA is a representative republic the elections of it's officials should be as was intended and allowed to be by the purest of democratic principals.....one citizen, one vote.


Well - Since Obama's name wasn't even on the Michigan primary ballot - one would assume that any Michigan Democratic Delegates should have voted for Hilary. In order for our delegates to even get a vote - there had to be an agreement for Obama to get a certain amount of those votes.

To be honest - I think the whole thing needs a complete overhaul but I certainly doubt we will see one in my lifetime.

Flamethrower;1017512 wrote: As far as votes counting:

The Electoral College was useful when America was a largely agricultural country with large expanses separating individuals residences and a lack of rapid transportation and mass communication.

The principal was that a representative of a number of residents in a given geographical area would cast a ballot reflecting the majority vote of said citizens.

This works well as long as the elector actually casts the ballot of the majority (which BTW is NOT required of them). Failure to do so allows for a candidate to win the popular vote but lose the election.

Today we have the means to count each and every individual vote in a timely and accurate fashion which renders the Electoral College moot.

Although the USA is a representative republic the elections of it's officials should be as was intended and allowed to be by the purest of democratic principals.....one citizen, one vote.


Effectively the majority of the voters are disenfranchised as their choice of candidate has little chance of getting through the system.

We have a similar situation here with our first past the post system 2/3 rds of the votes are actually AGAINST labour-just as the vast majority were AGAINST thatcher. we need proportional representation but the two major parties are opposed to it-this idea that you need "strong" (read that as theirs) government even if most people oppose it. The first thing they normally do is gerrymander electoral boundaries to give themselves an advantage. We have it now in the scottish parliament elections and it has fairly livened up the elections. For the first time in decades the parties can't take their support for ranted.

LilacDragon;1017652 wrote: Well - Since Obama's name wasn't even on the Michigan primary ballot - one would assume that any Michigan Democratic Delegates should have voted for Hilary. In order for our delegates to even get a vote - there had to be an agreement for Obama to get a certain amount of those votes.



To be honest - I think the whole thing needs a complete overhaul but I certainly doubt we will see one in my lifetime.
You're talking about the party primary, not the election. The Dems really screwed ya'll over by changing rules in mid-process, no doubt about it.

gmc;1018191 wrote: For the first time in decades the parties can't take their support for ranted.
Nice Freudian slip.