• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

My vote literally doesn't matter

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nyarlathotep

Philosopher
Nyarlathotep
Joined
Mar 26, 2003
Messages
7,503
At least in the presidential race. Somebody by all means tell me if my logic is off, but my state's demographics and the 'winner take all' system in general conspire to render my vote for president purely symbolic because I live in Nevada but I don't live in Las Vegas.

Simply put more than two thirds of my state's registered voters live in Clark County (Where Las Vegas is). That means either candidate could take the narrowest possible lead in Clark County, 50% of the vote + 1 guy and then every last voter in the entire rest of the state could vote for the other candidate and the candidate who takes Vegas would still win.

Since I am one of those people who live in the rest of the state, my vote means exactly jack ****. The popular vote counts for nothing (except occasionally giving the losing party something to whine about) and the winner takes all system means that a win by one vote counts exactly the same as a unanimous vote.

I'll still vote because the presidential race isn't the only show in town, but for all practical purposes, in Nevada, only Las Vegas matters as far as voting for president goes, and that irritates me. Is there something I am missing, though?
 
mr rosewater said:
I live in N.J. my vote also means nothing.
Click to expand...


My guess is it is for the same reason, a high concentrarion of population in one area, and you live elsewhere. No?

To me, I can't think of a better argument for some sort of proportional allocation of electoral votes.
 
Nyarlathotep said:
My guess is it is for the same reason, a high concentrarion of population in one area, and you live elsewhere. No?

To me, I can't think of a better argument for some sort of proportional allocation of electoral votes.
Click to expand...

I can't say I would vote republican I really don't care for either of them, but it bothers me that N.J. is in the democratic column case closed. Yes I'd like a voice even if it's a third party.
 
mr rosewater said:
I can't say I would vote republican I really don't care for either of them, but it bothers me that N.J. is in the democratic column case closed. Yes I'd like a voice even if it's a third party.
Click to expand...

Ah. That's another thing I was thinking about, too. The winner take all system means that a Texas Democrat or a California Republican might as well stay home that day for all the meaning his vote has.
 
Nyarlathotep said:
At least in the presidential race. Somebody by all means tell me if my logic is off, but my state's demographics and the 'winner take all' system in general conspire to render my vote for president purely symbolic because I live in Nevada but I don't live in Las Vegas.

Simply put more than two thirds of my state's registered voters live in Clark County (Where Las Vegas is). That means either candidate could take the narrowest possible lead in Clark County, 50% of the vote + 1 guy and then every last voter in the entire rest of the state could vote for the other candidate and the candidate who takes Vegas would still win.

Since I am one of those people who live in the rest of the state, my vote means exactly jack ****. The popular vote counts for nothing (except occasionally giving the losing party something to whine about) and the winner takes all system means that a win by one vote counts exactly the same as a unanimous vote.

I'll still vote because the presidential race isn't the only show in town, but for all practical purposes, in Nevada, only Las Vegas matters as far as voting for president goes, and that irritates me. Is there something I am missing, though?
Click to expand...
I don't understand. Does not the winner of the popular vote over the entire state take all electoral votes for the state? If so, your vote counts exactly as much as anyone else's in the state. What am I missing?

Now, I live in Kansas. McCain is going to win this state no matter how I vote (which I already did).
 
Nyarlathotep said:
At least in the presidential race. Somebody by all means tell me if my logic is off, but my state's demographics and the 'winner take all' system in general conspire to render my vote for president purely symbolic because I live in Nevada but I don't live in Las Vegas.

Simply put more than two thirds of my state's registered voters live in Clark County (Where Las Vegas is). That means either candidate could take the narrowest possible lead in Clark County, 50% of the vote + 1 guy and then every last voter in the entire rest of the state could vote for the other candidate and the candidate who takes Vegas would still win.

[...]

Is there something I am missing, though?
Click to expand...
I was wondering that myself.

Let's get this straight. In each county of your state it is first past the post. Then to determine your electoral college vote, they count each county as 100% or 0% for each candidate (first past the post) and then weigh these votes according to population to determine which of two Presidential candidates should get all of your electoral college votes.

Are we missing something?
 
Nyarlathotep said:
At least in the presidential race. Somebody by all means tell me if my logic is off
Click to expand...
Your logic is completely off. Winner take all isn't used on a county level.

Go vote. Nevada is one of the swingiest states around.
 
mortimer said:
I don't understand. Does not the winner of the popular vote over the entire state take all electoral votes for the state? If so, your vote counts exactly as much as anyone else's in the state. What am I missing?

Now, I live in Kansas. McCain is going to win this state no matter how I vote (which I already did).
Click to expand...

Actually, I fugured out that my error was in not counting the losing vote from vegas and adding it to the rest of the state. Though that only works in the narrow hypothetical situation I proposed. If it is anything but 'somebody narrowly takes Vegas, everywhere else votes for the other guy' I STILL may as well have stayed home. If Vegas goes solidly for one candidate, there isn't enough 'rest of the state' to make up for it.
 
Nyarlathotep said:
Ah. That's another thing I was thinking about, too. The winner take all system means that a Texas Democrat or a California Republican might as well stay home that day for all the meaning his vote has.
Click to expand...

If you base your actions on the outcome of a single election yes. First past the post tends to generate this kind of problem. On the other hand it tends to generate clear winners although that is of little significance for the presidential race.
 
Nyarlathotep said:
At least in the presidential race. Somebody by all means tell me if my logic is off, but my state's demographics and the 'winner take all' system in general conspire to render my vote for president purely symbolic because I live in Nevada but I don't live in Las Vegas.

Simply put more than two thirds of my state's registered voters live in Clark County (Where Las Vegas is). That means either candidate could take the narrowest possible lead in Clark County, 50% of the vote + 1 guy and then every last voter in the entire rest of the state could vote for the other candidate and the candidate who takes Vegas would still win.
Click to expand...

That's not really true. First off, if you actually do the math, it would have to be 75% of the Clark County vote in order for a candidate to win without any of the votes from the rest of the state, not 50% + 1. (Since 2/3 * 75% + 1/3 * 0% = 50%) A candidate who gets 50% + 1 of the vote in Clark County has to get 50% of the vote in the rest of the state, since even the slightest loss in the rest of the state would cancel out that one vote.

Now, it's true that with a modest lead in Clark County is enough to cancel out a comparatively large loss in terms of percentages in the rest of the state, but so what? The idea of dividing Nevada into Clark County and the rest is totally artificial. If you were to decide to pick up your stuff and move to Clark County so you could vote there, this action would not effect the election in any way. Each presidential candidate would get the same exact number of votes, whoever wins if you live in Clark County wins if you live in Reno or whereever. (Of course, if you were to move to California, it would effect the election, because of the electoral college.) Land doesn't vote, people do.
 
Last edited:
mortimer said:
I don't understand. Does not the winner of the popular vote over the entire state take all electoral votes for the state? If so, your vote counts exactly as much as anyone else's in the state. What am I missing?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that he's right, but what Nyarlathotep said was:

Simply put more than two thirds of my state's registered voters live in Clark County (Where Las Vegas is). That means either candidate could take the narrowest possible lead in Clark County, 50% of the vote + 1 guy and then every last voter in the entire rest of the state could vote for the other candidate and the candidate who takes Vegas would still win. ​

Now, if his account is correct (and if we make Clark County's population exactly two-thirds, to make the math easier) then it would be theoretically possible for McCain to beat Obama by 66:34 in the popular vote in Nevada and for Obama to win Nevada and therefore all its electoral college votes.

The only reason I doubt Nyarlathotep's assertion about Nevada's electoral system is that that would be way the dumbest thing I've heard all week.
 
Nyarlathotep said:
Actually, I fugured out that my error was in not counting the losing vote from vegas and adding it to the rest of the state.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you figured that out.

Though that only works in the narrow hypothetical situation I proposed. If it is anything but 'somebody narrowly takes Vegas, everywhere else votes for the other guy' I STILL may as well have stayed home.
Click to expand...
Oh for the love of ...

Look, it's still one man one vote, isn't it? In retrospect, unless your candidate wins by just one vote, you might as well have stayed at home.

Nonetheless, democracy does have a certain appeal.
 
Rika said:
Actually, this problem occurs frequentyl in WA. If you don't live in the Greater Seattle Metro area, your vote means verrrry little.
Click to expand...

actually, it is one vote no matter where you live...
It is only when you don't vote that your vote has little meaning.
 
No, I mean by proprotions. Close to 4/5ths the population lives there. Your vote is sorta irrelevant in Eastern Washington.

Let me explain. WA is a democratic lock but the Eastern half usually votes Republican near uniformly. That should explain why (although I feel it my duty to vote and did) it can seem like it doesn't matter
 
It would be interesting to make federal elections based on the popular vote instead of states, though I think this would put the Republicans in an even worse position. At least that way you would know your vote was 1/200 millionth or whatever, instead of having to guess about its actual weight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom