Can we ever have a fair election, where every vote counts & we have a nonpartisa

1. 69

   Shyron E Shenkoposted 6 years ago

   Can we ever have a fair election, where every vote counts & we have a nonpartisan Electoral College.
   
   How can we ever have a fair/honest election when every vote does not count and we have an Electoral College that is NOT nonpartisan?
   How can my vote count when I am in a state that allows gerrymandering to draw lines to exclude/include persons according to how the gerrymanders/Electoral College members want them/us to vote?
   This last election is an example of OVER 3 million votes/voters did not count.
   Maybe the Electoral College would work if the members were nonpartisan, but how can you have people to serve as nonpartisan members, when every person has a bias one way or the other?

   replyreport
2. 94

   TLStahlingposted 6 years ago

   I finally understood the Electoral College and why we have it on the last election. If we didn't have it, then California and New York would decide elections due to population - and no one else's vote would count.
   
   However, I do believe the Electoral votes went with the State's popular vote. I don't remember any state going against it in a partisan direction.
   
   I have a problem with caucus voting. For instance, I wasn't able to vote in the primary because I would have to spend a whole day physically present and be a "body count." I couldn't get away to do it, so my vote didn't count. I feel that's voter suppression.
   
   As far as popular vote, I remember Al Gore had the popular vote, but Bush won - actually he was appointed by the Supreme Court because of the Florida debacle. Florida, where his brother was Governor, and the Secretary of State Katherine Harris was promoted. A county recount would have given it to Bush, but a state recount would have given it to Gore.

   replyreport
   1. 69

      Shyron E Shenkoposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      TL thank you for the comment, I must disagree in that California and new York would have decided the outcome of the election, but I do appreciate your answering my question.

      replyreport
   2. 50

      bradmasterOCcalposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Tl, I agree. NY,IL,CA is 6% of the US states, yet they have 104 EC votes accounting for 38.% of the 270 votes. CA gave HRC the pop vote, but HRC lost because she needed more than 3 dem states. CA is the last state that represents Americans in the US.

      replyreport
   3. 95

      Readmikenowposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      TLStahling, I agree with you on the Electoral College.  Disagree with you about Bush. Here's a good article by ABC News. They were no fan of Bush.
      http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93642

      replyreport
3. 0

   RTalloniposted 6 years ago

   Diamond of a question since there are so many facets to examine it through. The last phrase caused me to consider how each person is unique with their own reasoning to help them settle on a decision/response to situations. Add in other motivations that cause people, after considering all things, to agree with choices even though they are not their ideal because they think those choices are the best option overall and we can see broad problems with trying to dismiss peoples' biases. 
   
   More specifically, politics is dirty business. We need people of high character and a good understanding of that dirty business serving in political positions but power mongers with limited interest in the good of all too often lie their way into those offices. When voters are motivated by popular culture's opinions and love of what money can do for them rather than love of what pleases God they are not going to make the wisest choices. It often takes a season of experience with a national or local administration to wake voters up to the need for rethinking their choice(s) and that simply results in a new and perhaps just as unwise choice. 
   
   It is up to voters to unite if gerrymandering and the Electoral College are to be overruled. What will unite them, though? It seems an impossibility. Gang law/Shariah Law styled legislation has addressed the issue in some places, but that's not the American way. Though we may face it, I wouldn't choose it. In reading the Founders writings we see that they warned against that which would allow the government to come to what we see now with weakened voters' voices. How to strengthen voters' voices is just a different way to word the question.
   
   The answer to that is whatever they unite in will do the job. That whatever, though, is crucial to whether America will rebuild its strengths or be overrun and in the end become not America. It is the key to remaining sovereign or being melted into a world system that will destroy it. Some believe that end is inevitable, all things considered, but believe also that duty calls for working toward trying to strengthen the country.
   
   The methods chosen for that work, however, will largely determine the success of the effort. The idea of independence for a nation was a calculated risk that came with cautionary addenda which is increasingly ignored as time goes by. A nation filled with self-indulgent people will have a very difficult time defending themselves from the consequences.

   replyreport
   1. 69

      Shyron E Shenkoposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      R Talloni, thank you for your answer, I do appreciate your input, your answer is a gem, but I fear most people are to self absorbed to go along with the majority of those of us who long for our American legacy from the founding fathers.
      Blessings

      replyreport
4. 59

   Johnny James Aposted 6 years ago

   The election of U.S. Presidents, is actually a pretty fair system on the whole. While I know many people champion popular voting, and the removal of the electoral college, this could lead to more expensive elections.  For instance, all states have an automatic recount if a vote discrepancy is under a certain threshold. Since most candidates win a state by a decent margin it is rare to trigger the recount. In addition, the recount can be waived if the winning candidate would win the presidency with or without the state’s electoral votes. If we were to go to a popular vote, and the election was extremely close, you could literally trigger a recounting of every vote since your measurement is no longer per state and per electoral college threshold. The possibility is small, but could happen. Another reason why popular vote may be a hard sell, will have to do with time zones and vote recording. Conservatives and Moderates may feel that they are at a disadvantage as the more liberal states, in a popular voting method, will have the opportunity to see the current vote tallies and decide to ramp up voting in left leaning west coast states.  If you decide to make all voting stop at a certain time say 11 pm EST/8 PST, then the Democrats will feel it is unfair that their constituents will have to vote earlier in the morning or immediately after work putting them at a disadvantage.  Some have argued using the method of Maine and Nebraska and split the electoral votes by House congressional districts, however, this could lead to more gerrymandering in certain states. In the end, there will be some faction who will feel slighted no matter what method is selected. So long as all candidates know the rules prior to playing the game, then they know what they need to do or not do to win. That being said, for your other point on the Electoral College voting their conscious or per the vote of the state. From a Constitutional Law point of view, I am wary that states believe they can compel a delegate to vote per the vote, and the constitution and the founding fathers in their congressional papers and the Federalist papers specifically said this was not the case. However, on a personal note, I want them to vote per the dictates of the state rule.

   replyreport
   1. 69

      Shyron E Shenkoposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Johnny, thanks a million for the participation in answering this question, I do appreciate your input on this debacle.
      Blessings

      replyreport