ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • United States Politics

Voting From the Past

Updated on February 19, 2018

This is the results of Loyal Party voters

Loyal party voters are the problem

Loyal party voters are the problem

The dominant two party system takes advantage of their loyal party voters.

As the voters register with their party, the party cashes in that vote.

It is a mere formality for these voters to actually cast their vote.

The party will tell them which candidate to vote for thereby narrowing down the party's selection.

Then as the convention nears the party starts counting their votes from these loyal party voters.

Party A then looks at how many loyal party voters are in Party B.

Party B does the same thing.

This article will use the 2012 Election in specific because it was before the 2016 Election Controversy of Hillary versus Trump.


Now I have no idea about the exact mechanism used by the parties to do the math, but in general it would go like this:

  1. Estimate the total voter turnout using the previous elections.
  2. Estimate the total number of loyal registered voters will actually vote for their candidate.
  3. Estimate the total number of loyal registered voters in the other party that will vote for that party's candidate.
  4. Estimate the total number of independent voters, then factor how many of these independent voters need to vote for the party's candidate in order to win the election. In this case it is a zero sum number. Many of the independents will vote for a party outside of the dominant two. However, some of the independents can be swayed to Party A or Party B.
  5. Steps 1 to 4 are done for each state, and for the electoral college.

So both parties using something probably more precise than this generic algorithm already know which are the critical states, the marginal states, and the can go either way states.

The point that I am making is that the voters are sheep that allow their votes to be cashed in by the party, at the time that they register to vote.The only intelligent voters are the independent voters, as they have not made any real commitments to either of the big two.

The truly sad part is that all of these calculations will turn out miraculously to be somewhat accurate. The other sad part is that none of the campaign issues will make any difference to the registered voters of Party A or Party B. They might make some difference to the independent voters.

Here is some proof

  • It is already known that Romney needs to take Virginia.
  • In Virginia a 3rd party candidate can prevent Mitt Romney’s from taking Virginia.
  • Virgil Goode, has 9% of the projected vote running in Virginia,.
  • This state is crucial for Romney if President Obama takes Ohio or Florida.

With the election still three months away and Romney not yet selecting a Vice President, why should the race already be a mathematical certainty?

The ways that the parties are running these candidates and these elections is less riskier than the gambling done by a big Las Vegas casino. The house always has the edge, they don't gamble they have the odds in their favor.

Voting in any election but especially in a presidential election when the country is down requires more from the voters then voting for their party. The democrats and the republicans can't agree in congress even for things that will make the country move forward. The same is true of the voters, who won't vote for the better candidate, rather than being loyal to the party.

Comments

What we need are voters who can think and move past party loyalty. Our country is in deep trouble. If people really care they must cast an intelligent vote. Is that possible? Up and useful and awesome!

Why should Swing States Exist?

Why should Swing States Exist?

Whether you think of the United States of America as a Democracy or a Republic how can you think of the electoral college as representing the people.

We the People, is not we the states or we the political party.

We the People should mean that one person one vote in selecting the people to represent us in Congress and the Presidency.

How does my one vote have any bearing on who is going to represent We The People? The Electoral College has created the concept of the majority rules, and if your vote was not in the majority your vote didn't count. The majority voting by the electoral vote is not by We The People it is representatives chosen indirectly by the parties in the states.

The two dominant parties in the US are in my opinion the problem with US politics. They are blue or red and rarely purple. So giving the party control over the electoral college usurps my vote. It makes it the same as if I voted Row A or Row B instead of allowing my vote to go directly to the candidate that I think will do best.

Swing states make the process or We The People into a group activity and that group is the party. That means that the party is above the will of the people. So how could the founders put the electoral college in the same vain as We The People?

It would be different if the electoral college did a proportional vote for the candidates. To be president the candidate needs 270 votes to win, which is the slightest majority to represent the entire country as president. As this happened several times in recent elections, the presidency is representing only those people that voted for that candidate. The other large groups of voters that were slightly less than the majority have no representation by the president.

After all the party picked the president, the people didn't pick the president. This is also true across the states, because those voters whose candidate didn't win have no presidential representation for their state.

What the US Presidential Election has seen more often than not is the voters having a choice for Evil or the lesser Evil. This is due to the party influence. Without a compromising congress gridlock prevents any forward movement of the country. So over the elections, the parties move the country to the left or to the right, but it can't move it forward because that would take team work between the parties.

So now the swing states are the only states in the country that the candidates are interested in talking and pandering to for the rest of the campaign. These swing states would exist as so predictable of being necessary to winning the presidency if it were not for the electoral college.

Why should 20% of the states determine who will become the president of the United States of America?

The answer is that there is no reason.

The founders had some good ideas, but they had no idea that there would be two dominant parties that couldn't work together. They had no concept of states from their history in England. In fact, the Articles of Confederation was popular with half the country and if the South had won the war,that would have been our constitution.

So if you are not in one of these swing states, all your party will ask you to do is the contribute money so they can pander to the swing states. Oh, your vote, the party cashed it when you registered with the party.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No comments yet.

    working