According to International IDEA, the United States has almost the lowest voter turnout in the world, ranked a measly 140 out of 163. Perhaps Americans are apathetic, or maybe they’re just concerned their vote is meaningless in the face of America's massive political machine. Can my vote really change the course of politics, or am I just a grain of sand on the massive beach of democracy?
 |
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
If McCain had associated with unrepentant abortion clinic bombers... would anyone vote for him ?
If not... why will anyone vote for Obama ?
- CharlieBravo
October 12, 2008 12:21AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Because this is the double standard that we live by. People will do whatever it takes to bring down someone they don't like without thinking of what will happen in the future. I do agree with you. Why vote Obama if you would not vote McCain if he had done this?
- Iraqvet October 16, 2008 4:59PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The argument that voting doesn't matter says that one vote in millions will not be decisive in the outcome is a perfectly legitimate one. However, your argument amounts to "Young voters care about issues". This has nothing to do with arguing the point of whether a single vote "matters".
- Doublecheck October 19, 2008 10:11PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
It pains me to see someone who agrees with me making a (in my opinion) tactical error in arguing my point. The "error" is near the end of the response, in your mention of how you have voted many times in state and national elections and your vote did not sway the election. Please do not fall into the trap of so many intelligent-design proponents of offering up an isolated case in support of your point. Though I realize your main argument is contained in the rest of the essay, to even start down that road opens the door a crack for unreasonable responses from the opposing side.
If I'm not being clear, let me restate: stick to your strength in this debate: the fact that a rational and unbiased perspective supports your argument. Straying into murky, weak evidence can only hurt your side.
- Doublecheck October 19, 2008 10:20PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
I disagree.
Consider this, if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it mean that the tree didn't fall?
Of course not!
Now consider this too, if an election is based on a count of 1 vote, which all are by the way, then how will you ever know that your vote wasn't that one your candidate needed? You can't, unless you're claiming Supreme Godhood!
Some where along the election process the pivotal point of 1 vote is passed, but on that road are all those votes being cast which tally up to that pivoting point. So what if 1,000,000 votes are cast afterword. Nobody knows when that pivotal point is reached until hours after it's actually been reached. So the weight of your vote isn't unknown to anyone but God.
Were I would agree is on your point of a vote being "decisive". Every vote is crucial, but only in a extremely close election or in the case of your example of a small polity like the Supreme Court, does a single vote become "decisive."
- michaelz October 16, 2008 11:05AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The EC is the electorate that really decides the presidential election. There are really no laws on the books in the Constitution or by the state that requires the EC to vote the way of the people. If a state votes for on candidate, there is a chance that the electors could vote for the other person. It is the choice of the elector.
- Iraqvet October 16, 2008 4:49PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
And that's why we must push for the abolition of the Electoral College ASAP, because I live in a state (Texas) that is Republican dominated even though I plan to vote Democratic this year. It is upsetting to think my vote and support for Barack Obama will amount to nothing! Free the elections! Let the PEOPLE, not an elite group, decide!
- Dale Husband October 16, 2008 5:32PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
If we were to go to a popular vote then the elections would be pretty much decided by the four largest cities in the country. All other states would not matter. This makes sure that every state has some say in the election.
- Iraqvet October 16, 2008 5:57PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"If we were to go to a popular vote then the elections would be pretty much decided by the four largest cities in the country."
Why? That argument would only make sense if all four largest cities voted the same way every time. Cultural and industrial differences between them makes that unlikely.
"All other states would not matter. This makes sure that every state has some say in the election."
Why? That makes no sense, really. If a state is known to be leaning towards the Democrats under the present system, there is no reason for the Republican candidate to bother with it, and vice versa. Having Presidents elected by popular vote forces the candidates of both major parties to work that much harder to win votes in every single state.
- Dale Husband October 16, 2008 11:57PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"If we were to go to a popular vote then the elections would be pretty much decided by the four largest cities in the country. All other states would not matter. This makes sure that every state has some say in the election ."
Every state does not have the same say. California has 55 electoral votes, while Wyoming has 3. In fact it's grossly disproportionate. California has approx 33million people while Wyoming has approx 500,000. So proportionately speaking a person in wyoming have a greater voice then a person in California.
Moreover If the largest cities in california carry the state to the democratic candidate then all the republic votes are essentially ignored and their electoral college votes go to a democrat.
both of these examples show a gross misrepresentation by the electoral college.
- Serothis March 24, 2009 10:43PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
"You can safely take others' voting behavior as given and understand that your individual vote will not be decisive at the margin. This should free you to vote however and for whomever you choose."
Or not at all.
- Doublecheck October 29, 2008 10:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I have read Dr. Caplan's book, and his evidence does not support his conclusions. Evidence suggests that voter choices are different from consumer choices - but which of these are the "errors" is a matter of perspective.
What Dr. Caplan has actually discovered is that there is a significant and consistent difference between the way people vote and the way they behave in the market. For example, in the market they would prefer cheaper food, but in voting they support farm subsidies, which make food more expensive.
Dr. Caplan chose to call this "voter bias." He assumed - for no particular reason - that markets are the measure of what people "really want." So if they vote in ways that go against their market behavior, they are "making a mistake." But who is he - or who are you - to decide which is the mistake and which is the correct choice when people behave inconsistently? Perhaps votes truly reflect people's wishes, and the markets are the ones that are biased and prone to mistakes.
- Kwiz August 27, 2008 1:46PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
To follow-up on my previous comment: We know that markets and votes yield different results. But we cannot say with certainty which of the results is the "correct" one, because we cannot know for sure what people really want. In fact, it is more likely that votes are correct and markets are biased, because people give more thought to their voting decisions than to their grocery shopping. When buying food, people don't consider all the factors they care about. When voting for farm subsidies, they consider more factors than when they go shopping. There are numerous debates in the media and civil society about voting. There are much fewer debates about shopping. Voters, as uninformed as they may be, are certainly more informed than shoppers.
So we should react to the difference between democracy and markets by joining the side of democracy, extending the range of things that are decided democratically and reducing the range of things that are decided through market channels.
- Kwiz August 27, 2008 1:51PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
I'll never vote in a presidential election again. Any system that, after more than 200 years of practice produces two terms of GWB is obviously severely broken. Perhaps once it gets repaired (heh) I'll consider taking part in it again.
However, local matters are a completely different ball of wax. Our votes on local issues actually do matter because the majority of votes truly decides the issue. Local issues determine most of our tax load, our kids' education, our local infrastructure, etc. In short, local elections matter the most. And in local elections, yes, our votes do matter.
- JackNYC September 4, 2008 5:52AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
It isn't about just Bush either. Many couldn't believe Clinton got two terms either.
This country has been in the throws of no choice politics for a while. The division of the populace on issues and policies has been quite aparant for some time. It goes deep. It has taken this new depression we now have, to even start to bring people together.
The acid test will be wether Obama will fix the human rights violations perpetrated by the Bush monarchy, in the name of Homeland Security. Bush has focused far too much power into one small cluster of people, to be good.
I can appreciate Bush's intent, but like many things, he is far from the mark, in sensible execution. We severely need transparancy to be put back into the government. Accountability and responsibility, used to be the hallmark of the Republican party.
On the scale of things is seems more and more that the Republicans are the same as the old Democrats, and the Dems are clones of the old Republicans.
Makes one wonder as to why the role switch has happened in politics.
- tomcat2200 October 17, 2008 1:28PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
From your argument: "These super-delegates account for an astounding 20% of the 4119 total Democratic Party delegates. That’s absurd! And that’s why for example, that although Hillary Clinton won more of the popular vote than Barack Obama, she will not receive the nomination. The combination of awarded delegates and super-delegates gives the nomination to Obama."
This is highly misleading at best. You heavily imply that Clinton won more elected delegates than Obama, but he was nominated because he had more delegates. Obama won more elected delegates than Clinton. He didn't win the nomination because of the superdelegates, which is what your "and that's why" statement heavily implies. You didn't outright state it, I assume because you know it's not true, but you did say that she "won more of the popular vote." This is not true by any metric except a few which discount every caucus and include all of Clinton's Michigan votes. Obama gets zero votes from Michigan as he wasn't on the ballot. How is that fair? For an article about fairness, that's pretty ridiculous.
It's also worth noting that primaries are an internal affair in which the parties choose who to include in the election. The primaries aren't elections, and are inherently not "democracy." Why should they be? You have a constitutional right to vote for president, not a right to determine who's on the ballot.
The electoral college is ridiculous in my mind, but it would be virtually impossible to overturn. The small states demanded an unequally strong say in government (overrepresented in the senate AND the house) to join the union, and it's doubtful they'll vote to remove things that give them this extra power... like the electoral college.
- lostlo September 3, 2008 3:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
My vote might matter. I agree that voting is a privilege. Unfortunately too many Americans who have been born here and whose parents have been born here have become blasé. I am the American-born child of a parent who came here from another country looking for a better world and therefore I may have a different perspective than many.
Yes, our system definitely needs changing from the Electoral College to an individual vote. Perhaps many other political changes should be made to our system as well. However, in the meantime, this is the system we currently have. If we don’t like the system, we should do whatever it takes to make changes. Since we have this privilege to vote secretly, it should be regarded as a privilege which should be cherished and not wasted.
I look at it this way. It is not really a major hardship to go out and vote. So – why not just do it? Hopefully, my vote will count. But - if I don’t go out and vote – then …………………………..
- mellis August 27, 2008 1:45PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
If people believe they have a duty to vote it's a good thing. Why should be duties be regarded as burdens?
- Michael Glass
November 19, 2008 3:14PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Does My Vote Matter?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
you shouldn't care if your vote matters
you should vote because you can. Some of Us americans take voting as a chore, we should take it as an opportunity. Many years ago people couldn't vote and they wanted to. Americans don't think that one vote will make a difference but it should make a difference in your life, showing that you actually care about this country. I have voted since I turned 18 and will continue even though I am only 1 vote.
- mdel085 September 1, 2008 5:59AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Does my vote matter? probably not
Politicians are only interested in the voters at election time. They will do/say whatever it take to get elected and then do what they want.
You want your vote to make a difference ? I don't know how it works in the US but here in the UK spoiled papers are recorded, so right an appropriate comment on the paper. You can not then be counted as apathetic. If sufficient numbers did that, something would have to give, a bit like having a box that says "none of the above"
"... expect voting to be characterised by rational ignorance; it is rational to be ignorant when the information costs more than it is worth."
David Friedman
- Andrew Holt
September 1, 2008 6:33AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Your vote does matter
If we were to choose a President based on popular vote then only 2 states would matter. New York and Calif. The electoral college ensures that all 50 states have a say in the outcome. Broken down even further only a few high population areas would matter as more than 1/2 (+/-) of America's citizens reside in NY, LA, San Fran, Chicago and others. These urban areas would choose what's best for America. Seems to me that they have a hard time just keeping themselves afloat. Decide by popular vote...bad idea.
- TAZ
October 12, 2008 6:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
President Carden
Hypothetically, you are running for office; whether it is the Memphis Public School Treasury, Governor, or President. What would be your strategy? Billions and Billions of dollars have been spent on getting people off their sofa and to the polling places on Election Day. What would be your game plan for campaigning? “Alright everyone, no need for you to vote for me, because your vote won’t be decisive.” So, who does vote? The sad thing about our voting is that every vote is equal. Whether it be an aged woman who has always voted republican, just because she grew up on republican ideals, or the man in Washington DC who studies and critiques candidates, and can see more clearly who would be better off for our country. Those two votes cause equilibrium. So is it actually better off that we do not advocate voting, because the citizens who are undecided about voting, are probably the ones that shouldn’t vote, since they are the least political informed?
- excalibur
November 2, 2008 9:25AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It depends on what your expectations are.
If you're talking about the right to vote, yes it matters. Use it or lose it.
If you are talking about making a difference in government. No it doesn't matter under the reigning control in place. No one in government today will honor their oath and uphold and defend the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has ruled the government does not have to answer to the people.
WHEREAS, on February 22, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States
committed treason to the Constitution by refusing to hear the First Amendment case, We The People v. United States (case No. 07- 681), calling for a judicial declaration -- for the first time in history -- of the Rights of the People and the obligations of the Government under the “accountability clause” of the Constitution – that is, the last ten words of the First Amendment.
The only things they need us for is labor, money and soldiers.
- saga
January 13, 2009 9:28PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Easy
Give all voters the day off to vote . Only pay them if they show proof that they voted.
- Boss
March 25, 2009 2:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.