You all just stay home then, and I'll re elect the next president

My stating that I would write in Rodney King was tongue in cheek.

Really though, I can't find it in my conscience to vote for Obama because of his lack of leadership over the past 4 years. He did get a number of things done on a military basis that I have respect for, but that alone is not enough to buy my vote. He had the House and Senate for his first two years and didn't get much done. He had the opportunity to impact change in this nation, the main slogan of his campaign, and he faltered. His stand on imigration and other issues make him a no vote for me as well.

Voting Romney is not an option for me because he doesn't represent the ideals I stand for. The guy is way out of touch with the American public, and every time he opens his mouth he gets his foot in there deeper.

Obama is the empty suit and Romney is the manequin. Neither are qualifed to sit in the empty chair Clint Eastwood was speaking to.

That leaves many of us with a choice of compromising our personal values by voting for the turd that doesn't stink as bad as the other turd.

I personally will not "settle" when voting for president.

Best of luck to you and your choices.

Of course I am going to vote. Obama and Mitt have raised and spent a billion and a half dollars to tell me the other guy is an asshole so I figure they have earned it.

Salmo G has nailed it, anyone who could stand to run for president for one of those parties, clearly has a screw loose.

Personally, I believe pretty strongly in State's rights, and spend a lot of time thinking about local/statewide races and how they affect me. Just recently I met and talked with someone who is an incumbent for a local office. It only took me a few seconds to realize she is a "me-first" politician, only in place to further her family, and cronies position in this world. And she is a d!ck. I can't wait to vote for someone else.

Am I gonna vote?

You betcha!

Neither party will give up the senate fillibuster rule. They have given it lip service before. When Scott Brown took Kennedys seat, they would not have passed Obamacare on a straight vote. So they used another rule to pass it. Democrats had no trouble passing anything they wanted while Kennedy had the winning vote. Its a good bet, the senate will be even up or in the GOP hands and Reid is helping make that happen. The bigger problem is the voter fraud. About 1400 felons (if I remember correctly) that gave Al Frankin the win. Many were interviewed and some folks believe he would have lost the race without the felon votes. If you need ID to get into the conventions, you should need ID to vote.

It is too bad that a number of states are not even competitive these days. Considering the 16 trillion dollar debt, 23 million out of work, a failed monetary policy, a failed energy policy, an expensive and unpopular health care plan that wont insure or cover every ailment or lower health insurance costs, one would think that would be enough to cause a 50 state victory in November. Perhaps a large percentage of people want to give up their freedoms and their independence, in order to be taken care of from cradle to grave. It seems that politicians will be given the authority to tell people what they can eat, smoke, drink, what they can drive and what work they will be assigned and how much we are paid. It wont be long, before we are told how large our families can be and what recreational activities are no longer good for the collective.

What types of candidates will step out in that country? History already has a list of names of despots, who thought they had all the answers. Given the nature of our media, anyone stepping out of line will be dealt with, because insubordination will not be tolerated.

Not voting sends one message. Whatever the winner decides, will not be actively opposed in the next election, because we only get to vote for the lessor of two evils.

I wasn't attempting to get anyone to change their minds here, nor was I trying to be condescending..hope I didnt come off that way..

I was raising this subject because of my belief that voting for either candidate for the presidential election is a waste of time because of what they represent, and how they came to be nominated, and the EC process.

Their names are right there on the ballot, before all the other offices up for election in your district. If you choose not to vote down party lines at the beginning you can crush that ballot with as much democracy as your pen, or pencil, or lever, or computer button will let you. It's a power that Americans have protected for centuries-- since the Founding Fathers wrote that all men (women eventually, minorities a little later) are created equal with the inalienable rights of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to choose which douchebag or Turd will jokingly represent your interests in government and protect you from Nazis or something.

So right at the beginning you see the choice for President. And there are names with boxes next to them. It stands to reason that whichever one you choose is getting your vote. Bzzzz. Wrong. But thank you for playing Voting 101. Wait. What?

Yeah. That's right. You are not actually voting for who you want to be President. Now, this is not the case for any of the OTHER candidates you vote for on that ballot because they are elected through a popular election: most votes wins. Not the President though. That office is special and requires a special list of ridiculous but amazingly interesting rules associated with it.


Many people have heard of the Electoral College. Few people, other than those that are REALLY into Presidential elections understand how it works, most of whom are the ones actually running for President. On election night they keep talking about how the winner needs 270 electoral votes in order to be declared the winner. Seems like a low number of votes in order to be elected president. Suzie Q probably got that many running for First Grade hall monitor. So why 270? Let's do some quick math:

Congress is composed of 435 members in the House of Representatives and 100 members in the Senate. Each of these elected officials represents 1 vote in the Electoral College, plus Washington D.C. gets 3 (1 for the House and 2 for the Senate). That's a total of 538 electoral votes available. One-half of 538 is 269. One more than half is 270, or the number of votes necessary to become President. Yay!

But how does this relate to my vote you say? Simple, each state has X number of electoral votes associated with it (total House seats + 2 Senate seats) and each state is considered winner-takes-all. So whichever candidate gets the most votes in a state receives ALL the electoral votes that go with it. Or not. Wait. What?

That's right! Members of the Electoral College are appointed by the governors of the respective states. But there are no federal laws requiring them to vote in accordance with the popular vote. And in the states that have local laws the punishment is simply a fine but the vote cannot be changed.

Ok fine you say! Whatever. Even if someone else is voting for me no one would ever actually vote against the will of the people would they? Of course they would! And it's happened 156 times since the founding of the Electoral College! Such delegates are referred to as "faithless electors."

So in summary. Not only are you not voting for the President, you're voting for someone to cast your vote for President and that person can just say "go effff yourself" and vote for whoever the hell they want.

Regardless, the whole process is so corruptible its sickening...hence my reasoning.

We should do away with the EC. At minimum change to a format like Nebraska and Main where it's not winner take all.

Also, to add to Sky Guy's post. Should neither candidate reach 270 the House of Representatives elects the president. So it still never falls to a vote of the people. The great thing about our Constitution is that it can be changed, it's just not easy to do. With this only coming up every four years it's easily forgotten for three.

I'd be happy to do away with the EC. A lot of people assumed it would get changed if we ever, in "modern times", had a president that got elected without winning the popular vote. Well, we got our modern times example in 2000 with Gore vs. Bush and there was really no significant movement to change things. (It would have been interesting had the tables been turned as I think that Republicans would actually mobilize to change it if they were on the losing end but who knows?)

But the EC has ALWAYS been problematic so that is nothing new. The biggest problems today are the money injected into politics and party entrenchment. Most people would agree with that yet still support people that FAVOR both of these things.

I have no idea how to change things. I'll vote not because I'm confident it will help things but because I'm fairly confident that "not voting" help anything.

"Ok fine you say! Whatever. Even if someone else is voting for me no one would ever actually vote against the will of the people would they? Of course they would! And it's happened 156 times since the founding of the Electoral College! Such delegates are referred to as "faithless electors."


71 votes were changed because the Pres or VP died before the elector was able to cast a vote. Two votes were not cast at all, by abstaining.
63 electors of Horace Greeley changed their votes after Greeley died. 3 Electors voted for Greeley anyway and the votes were discounted by congress.

2 Maryland electors refused to vote for Presidental Candidate Henry Clay. In the same year 30 electors from PA refused to support Dem VP Martin Van Buren and voted for William Wilkins.

85 were changed by the electors personal interests or by accident. In 1936, one case 23 Virginia electors conspired to change their vote together, for Vice President.

In that case, the only case in which a winning candidate was rejected, Richard Mentor Johnson, the expected candidate, was promptly elected Vice President of the US by the US Senate in February 1937

No election has ever been changed.

The EC works just as it is supposed to.

Of course when you read the threads re: who's gonna win? it is certainly clear that most people didn't pay attention in 7th grade to what the EC is or how it works.

Claims about EC delegates not voting the way they are supposed to are unfounded.

Instead of foregoing your fundamental right to vote as an American to send a mystery message to no one, maybe you should start a movement to do away with the EC?

Considering how few people seem to understand how it works I doubt most people would miss it much!

Fish on...

Todd

The weighted average of New York helped put Gore over the top. If you dont put a limit on specific states, then the justification for two senators is also up for debate.

^What does this mean?

It means Gore won.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. I'm not 100% sure that's true

The EC has outlived its usefulness and should be eliminated. There is no excuse for not upgrading today's voting system to something much more representative of the the popular vote.
It's 2012, fer chrissake! We have computers now.......hello?
Voter ID should be mandatory......and free.

Any excuses to not do away with our present archaic system are certainly not based on wanting to represent the people's wishes. Period.

Move to a state with little population and watch what happens.

Do you like the fact that king, Pierce and Snohomish County decide the elections? So will New York, California and handful of other populated states. Just make enough people dependent or lazy and you will always be in power.

Really, stold!

Fishy

Wasting our breath and our time. These are the people who are going to elect the next president...the undecided:

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/undecided-voter/1418227

I agree with some of what you say and just wanted to be sure I read that right,don't get your panties into a bunch or TJ will be calling ya gay.

Just sayin.


Fishy

If the United States was converted to a body corporate after the Civil War…

… and if it still is a corporation…

… and if that corporation was reorganized in bankruptcy…

… and if you accept and exercise benefits and privileges from *it* in the form of voting, all the while blissfully doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different outcome…

Then what kind of person does that make you?

Perhaps, in doing a little historical fishing about of your own, there might be some very important things to know and understand to discern the final destination of the good ship Lollipop, and who may control the port of call….


My apologies for creating any cognitive dissonance in the prefabricated mental constructs of your personal Matrix. Enjoy the movie………


Atlas Shrugged

Yes, without looking it up, he did have more votes. But he did not win the election. Nor did he win Florida.
In any recount. I think the popular vote was higher for the loser in one other election. BTW Bush had 62,040,610 votes and Kerry had 59,028,444 votes