Anonymous wrote:
But Jeff - Delegate? Really? You point to that as a reason to vote? A toothless position held by an ineffective politicial who has virtually no chance of losing?

I was just pointing out that was one of the positions up for a vote. But, the importance of voting for Delegate is really symbolic. One of the best demonstrations of our desire for Federal representation is exercising our vote for that limited representation we now have. If nobody bothered to vote for delegate, it would be one more sign that we don't care about having representation in Congress.

To play devil's advocate, I'd like to point out that the messy delays trying to determine who won FL in 2000 was probably a very minor inconvenience compared to the chaos that could arise figuring out who actually had the higher vote in a close national election. Given that nowhere near 100% of voters take part in the election, the winner is a quirk of turnout rather than a real indication of the will of the people, so having a process that gives a definite result may be more important than determining who had the higher popular vote.

But I still resent the way Bush used the courts to get a result that he knew was opposite to the popular vote, especially since he then went on to act as though he had a mandate!

It would be nice if the US had a true democracy. Ironic that we are trying to force it on other countries.

jsteele wrote:There are normally other seats on the ballot. So, they should go to vote for those if nothing else. Take the case of DC. If there were ever a place where the presidential race was a foregone conclusion, it is DC. But, we are choosing two At-Large Council Members, ANC commissioners, a Delegate to the US House of Representatives, and, in a separate election held simultaneously, a new Council Chair. Some wards will also elect Council Members. If you are going to be there anyway for those elections, you may as well cast a presidential vote.

I live in DC, and I will vote only because of the Council seats. I'm not sure what Obama would have to do to lose DC (really, I can't think of one single thing that is within the realm of reality), so my incentive to vote in the election is nonexistent. Combine that with the fact that the general election in DC usually is meaningless because most real choices are made in the democratic primary,

But Jeff - Delegate? Really? You point to that as a reason to vote? A toothless position held by an ineffective politicial who has virtually no chance of losing?

Jamie Raskin of the MD State Senate has a cure for the Electoral College (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2007/08/deformed_reform.html, the National Popular Vote plan. If enough states pass it to constitute an electoral majority, it commits them to cast their votes for the winner of the popular vote. Since the Constitution allows the states to decide how to cast their electoral votes, no constitutional amendment is necessary.

It could be done by as few as twelve states, but for some reason Republicans oppose it. You'd think that the states that are sure things would be for it, no matter which party dominated, since their votes are taken for granted now, and candidates ignore them. But the GOP seems hung up on 2000, when it would have hurt them, as though that will never change. Since the sure things amount to over 360 electoral votes, it ought to be easy.

As Raskin points out, there are important Republicans as well as Democrats that have endorsed it. But when it passed both houses in California, Schwartzenegger vetoed it, and killed whatever momentum it had. This year it looks more likely that Obama could win the electoral vote and lose the popular, so maybe the parties will reverse their positions on the issue after the election.

I don't think the average American knew what Electoral College meant until Gore won the popular vote but lost the presidency. BTW, wasn't Hilary going to take up a Constitutional amendment to change that?

Although I usually do vote, I wouldn't make a great effort to, but I sure do a lot to try to convince my inlaws to vote. I live in DC, they in Ohio.

I'm in VA, so I know that my vote matters. When I lived in MoCo, I didn't bother.

Make sure election day is in the middle of the week, give people a federal holiday, and assign them via lottery a preferred time to go to the polls (those you can reach). Work with retailers, have an early holiday shopping day, discounts for people with an "I voted" sticker.

I've always voted even though I know my candidate likely won't win in any given election.

I do care about more than just the presidential ticket, though. There are some huge issues on the Maryland ballot this year -- same sex marriage, redistricting, and in-state tuition for undocumented students.

There are normally other seats on the ballot. So, they should go to vote for those if nothing else. Take the case of DC. If there were ever a place where the presidential race was a foregone conclusion, it is DC. But, we are choosing two At-Large Council Members, ANC commissioners, a Delegate to the US House of Representatives, and, in a separate election held simultaneously, a new Council Chair. Some wards will also elect Council Members. If you are going to be there anyway for those elections, you may as well cast a presidential vote.

Anonymous wrote:Voter turn out Is ultra low even when the electoral college isn't in play. Americans just aren't good at getting to the polls.

And the ruling elite knows this and laughs.

Voter turn out Is ultra low even when the electoral college isn't in play. Americans just aren't good at getting to the polls.

In states where there is 0% chance of candidate 'X' winning, I've read news stories that say voter turnout is ultra low just for that reason.

I live in a state that Obama is going to win unless he is found guilty of a heinous act. A few people in my family are not going to vote because they feel their vote does not count because he is going to win the state whether or not they go to the polls. So in this day and age, doesn't the Electoral College inhibit voting? Why even have it?