Election Poll, June 2012 Debate - Ellijay, GA

Obuma is in over his head, OR, is the one selected to bring down America as Gorbechev did USSR

If I voted it would be for a 3rd party, but I don't. Our system to pick the president is broken and unfair. It is electoral and not democratic at all. I suggest voting for someone else or better yet, don't vote. your voice doesn't count and it should.

Of course it counts!

Vote.

In a presidential election?
No sir, you need to check again.

The votes come from the Electoral College. Those people are hand picked. Each state has it's own set of rules governing those delegates but most are winner take all.

Your vote, the vote of the people in no way effects the outcome of a Presidential election.

You are 100% correct, in the information age there is no reason to continue with the electoral college.

I'm totally for the Electoral College.

Without it, the East and West Coasts would pick our Presidents and the middle of the country would not have a voice.

God Bless the Electoral College.

Just a quick glance at the table on the link below shows 217 million people are eligible to be voters in the US, didn't take the time to add each individual state on both coasts but I would say 90 million is in the ballpark. Assuming each and every voter on both coasts voted the same way, that would still leave +/- 100 million in middle America. I can't agree with you.

http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2010G.html

What has been shown possible though is that a candidate can win the popular vote and still lose in the electoral college, that is not true democracy imo

paul wrote:

What has been shown possible though is that a candidate can win the popular vote and still lose in the electoral college, that is not true democracy imo

You are correct sir and it has happened in the past.

John Quincy Adams (1824); Samuel J. Tilden won the popular vote but lost the election to Rutherford B. Hayes (1876); Grover Cleveland won the popular vote but lost the election to Benjamin Harrison (1888); Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election to George W. Bush (2000).

The reason it is possible to win the popular vote but lose in the electoral college is that the voice of the smaller states is protected by the electoral college. It gives them the opportunity to make a difference. Without it, the smaller less populated states would have no voice at all. Remember, this is not a democracy - it is a republic. There are safeguards to insure that the smaller states also are heard. For this reason, I believe that the electoral college is essential.

none needed

Thank you Charlie, I hadn't truly done my homework on the electoral colleges importance to states rights. What seemed to make sense to me actually doesn't after I read further. We are a republic, I forgot that.

Charlie Paris wrote:

The reason it is possible to win the popular vote but lose in the electoral college is that the voice of the smaller states is protected by the electoral college. It gives them the opportunity to make a difference. Without it, the smaller less populated states would have no voice at all. Remember, this is not a democracy - it is a republic. There are safeguards to insure that the smaller states also are heard. For this reason, I believe that the electoral college is essential.

That's right.

33 million Americans believe they are registered to vote, and are not! If you're not sure, here's a link to type in your name and make sure you are registered.

Happy Voting, Americans!

http://www.wallbuilders.com/vote/

Charlie Paris wrote:

The reason it is possible to win the popular vote but lose in the electoral college is that the voice of the smaller states is protected by the electoral college. It gives them the opportunity to make a difference. Without it, the smaller less populated states would have no voice at all. Remember, this is not a democracy - it is a republic. There are safeguards to insure that the smaller states also are heard. For this reason, I believe that the electoral college is essential.

You are indeed correct and this is why the system was set up. However the electors are chosen by the political party that is in control of each state normally. Once again swinging the votes one way or the other. It takes votes away from the individual and gives it to big government. That also lead into your republic statement. Yes we are a democratic republic, however each year more and more states rights are taken away and put into the hands of the Feds. The people in office are supposed to protect us from this because we the people voted for them and it's what we want. However we don't vote for them, they are picked by big government and in return allow big government to gain and maintain more and more control.

The lie that your vote counts just needs to stop.

What this country needs, regardless of how ugly it would be because where we are going isn't exactly pretty, is a hard reboot. Our system has a virus in it that is slowly choking the life,liberty and pursuit of happiness from it.

Stryffe wrote:

<quoted text>
You are indeed correct and this is why the system was set up. However the electors are chosen by the political party that is in control of each state normally. Once again swinging the votes one way or the other. It takes votes away from the individual and gives it to big government. That also lead into your republic statement. Yes we are a democratic republic, however each year more and more states rights are taken away and put into the hands of the Feds. The people in office are supposed to protect us from this because we the people voted for them and it's what we want. However we don't vote for them, they are picked by big government and in return allow big government to gain and maintain more and more control.
The lie that your vote counts just needs to stop.

Stryffe, I can't argue with you at all regarding the feds intrusion into states rights. Our current federal government operates as if there are no states rights - only federal control, and you recognize that. I'm going to have to stop there, or I'll get carried away and go on a rant about a federal government completely out of control.

Regarding the electors being selected by the political party - you are right again. We will not be voting for Obama or Romney in November. Instead, we will vote for a slate of electors from the democrat party and the republican party (and others, depending on the state). While they have been selected by the party they are, with a few exceptions, pledged to vote for the party candidate. So, if you want Romney to be president you vote for the republican electors, etc. So.....you vote for a party candidate, not a specific person, but the net effect is the same, so I can't agree that your vote doesn't count.

Charlie Paris wrote:

<quoted text>
Instead, we will vote for a slate of electors from the democrat party and the republican party (and others, depending on the state). While they have been selected by the party they are, with a few exceptions, pledged to vote for the party candidate. So, if you want Romney to be president you vote for the republican electors, etc. So.....you vote for a party candidate, not a specific person, but the net effect is the same, so I can't agree that your vote doesn't count.

And for the most part what you have said is correct. However what happens is the voters put people in office, often not because of money. People vote for a name they know and not necessarily for political views. Later the Electors are appointed. Now I've tried to find Georgia's rules on the appointment with no luck but in some states it falls to the party of the elected officials. That means they will get picked not by the people you voted for but their handlers.
Those Electors then get to vote after the general elections on who they think is the best person for the job. Or do they? In some states they law allows them to vote however they wish so they can go against the popular vote, which we have seen in the past. It's akin to spitting in the face of average Joe.
So in a perfect world the system might work, but our world isn't perfect and the system is broken. You can keep believing your vote makes a different, and I say again in local elections it might, but for the big job, it comes down to who you know and how much money you have. Period. The people really don't have a say.

I'm almost 40 and have only voted 1 time. Until the system is change, or rebooted as stated earlier, I'll use my right to boycott elections.

concerned american wrote:

none needed

You are right

It is very important for each and everyone vote. Look at our country. Obama thinks people between 5. And 55 are productive. Wait til 2014 when Obama care kicks in fully and see who gets treated. A panel of beucrates making decisions who gets treated and if insurance will pay. Doctors already dropping Medicare.. Voting third party will only help Obama return to office. Make your vote count. It's our country lets keep it.

It's a no-brainer...Government exists to support and serve the citizen, not the other way around. Conservatism in government is what we need to get us back on track - not more big government. We need someone who knows, respects, and loves the small business owner - not someone who thinks that the answer to America's problem is to have the taxpayers prop up more government workers.