Comment ATTENTION: YOUR VOTE REALLY DOES MEAN NOTHING (Score 2) 924
Just giving everyone here a heads-up. Your vote means absolutely jack shit in the case of a Presidential/Vice-Presidential election. In America we proscribe to a system for voting that includes and Electoral College. Ripped straight from Brittanica.com..here's the write up:
--------------------------------------------------
electoral college
in the United States, a group of electors chosen within each state to elect the president and vice president. Each state has as many presidential electors as it has representatives in both houses of Congress.
As originally planned by the framers of the Constitution, the electors actually choose the president. The framers preferred this to a direct popular election because, at a time when travel was difficult and there were no national party organizations, they feared that many regional candidates would divide the vote. Requiring a candidate to win a majority in the electoral college was a way of obtaining a national consensus.
Although the Constitution still allows electors to use their discretion, electors now are usually pledged to support a party's candidate. All the states, except Maine and Nebraska, hold a winner-take-all popular vote for electors. Whichever candidate wins a plurality in a state wins all the electoral votes in that state.
With the winner-take-all system, elected presidents receive a greater percentage of the electoral vote than of the popular vote. Two presidents, Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876 and Benjamin Harrison in 1888, won a majority of the electoral votes even though they received fewer popular votes than their principal opponents. In a very close election, it would again be possible for a popular-vote loser to be elected president. Opponents of the electoral system fear this would undermine the authority of the presidency. It is also feared that a regionally strong third-party candidate who could win even a few states could thwart the intention of the voters. He could throw his electoral votes to a candidate, who would not win otherwise, in exchange for political concessions.
Defenders of the system argue that in a direct popular vote the winner does not have to win a majority of anything--votes or states. Small states or states with a small population fear being overwhelmed by urban centres. Defenders claim a direct-vote system would encourage more splinter candidates.
--------------------------------------------------
So, as you can see, the popular vote is just a method we use to make the masses feel good about themselves. The real vote comes from the Electoral College...and, even though the article there says that the states elect them, I've NEVER heard of an election for an Electoral College nominee. So take a good look at the US government, and realize that you, as a citizen in the here "democracy", have absolutely no power what-so-ever when it comes to the presidency. This coming in so late will probably not be read...but whatever.
-------------------------------------------------
electoral college
in the United States, a group of electors chosen within each state to elect the president and vice president. Each state has as many presidential electors as it has representatives in both houses of Congress.
As originally planned by the framers of the Constitution, the electors actually choose the president. The framers preferred this to a direct popular election because, at a time when travel was difficult and there were no national party organizations, they feared that many regional candidates would divide the vote. Requiring a candidate to win a majority in the electoral college was a way of obtaining a national consensus.
Although the Constitution still allows electors to use their discretion, electors now are usually pledged to support a party's candidate. All the states, except Maine and Nebraska, hold a winner-take-all popular vote for electors. Whichever candidate wins a plurality in a state wins all the electoral votes in that state.
With the winner-take-all system, elected presidents receive a greater percentage of the electoral vote than of the popular vote. Two presidents, Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876 and Benjamin Harrison in 1888, won a majority of the electoral votes even though they received fewer popular votes than their principal opponents. In a very close election, it would again be possible for a popular-vote loser to be elected president. Opponents of the electoral system fear this would undermine the authority of the presidency. It is also feared that a regionally strong third-party candidate who could win even a few states could thwart the intention of the voters. He could throw his electoral votes to a candidate, who would not win otherwise, in exchange for political concessions.
Defenders of the system argue that in a direct popular vote the winner does not have to win a majority of anything--votes or states. Small states or states with a small population fear being overwhelmed by urban centres. Defenders claim a direct-vote system would encourage more splinter candidates.
-------------------------------------------------
So, as you can see, the popular vote is just a method we use to make the masses feel good about themselves. The real vote comes from the Electoral College...and, even though the article there says that the states elect them, I've NEVER heard of an election for an Electoral College nominee. So take a good look at the US government, and realize that you, as a citizen in the here "democracy", have absolutely no power what-so-ever when it comes to the presidency. This coming in so late will probably not be read...but whatever.
