letting voter turn-out determine the number of electoral votes in a presedentail election? It seems that states don't do enough to encourage everyone to take part in a democracy. Should they get the influence of their whole population if only a minority of them are coting?
2006-10-12 22:18:16 · 7 answers · asked by W0LF 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
What I'm concerned about is that the votes of people who don't vote still count in presidential elections. Even if 70% of New York doesn't think it's worth going to the poles the entire population is still represented by the elctoral college. I think more people would turn out to elections if they realized that any vote means that their voice is heard
2006-10-13 02:22:24 · update #1
this is an interesting variation on "proportional representation"
2006-10-12 22:28:15 · answer #1 · answered by XT rider 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The reason it is setup the way it is now, is because if you went just by numbers the less populated areas would not have a voice. What do people in inner city( the most populated) care about how things are run in less populated or rural areas. Rules in the city usually don't work for country. Example, if you let the state of California go by popular vote, it would be part of Mexico since the largest population is Spanish and doesn't really care about being part of America, they just want the money and services. What do the people in New York city care about rural New York? The problem with government now is that they don't think enough of all the population before they make laws. When the government tells citizens to drive less to save gas, they aren't thinking of the people in rural areas who drive one half to an hour just to get to work, or a half hour to get to a grocery store.
They don't have buses, taxis, or trolleys. All people need to get out and vote to change their candidates first so we all get people that will represent legal Americans, which we don't have now.
Vote , vote, vote.
What we need to stop is lobbyists, who make a half million a year to pay congress to pass laws for big cooperation's and not the voting public. Right now we have no one that represents the voters. The drug companies spend millions every year just to keep the prices up so they can make billions and the middle class suffers. That goes for all big cooperations.
2006-10-13 06:09:43 · answer #2 · answered by jackie 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, b/c the government did a lot of research and discussion to find this the most fair way.
A democracy cannot make people vote but you can go out and recruit young people and others (minorities, shut-ins, etc) to vote.
There are groups that go to nursing homes to let people vote. Maybe you could see about getting a group to go to Universities so students can vote right there. If it is more convenient maybe more young people would vote.
So many people are dissolutioned with the government that they assume their vote won't make a difference. It is such low voter turn out that allows such lunatics to win gov. positions.
People who are from the U.S. don't realize what a privilege it is, even when they see other countries or immigrants go to such lengths for such a right.
Hey if you don't try and make a difference, who will?
2006-10-13 05:27:17 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I disagree. What you are suggesting is really making voting non-compulsory. This could lead to the kind of situation they have in america.
2006-10-13 05:22:20 · answer #4 · answered by TC 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yeah right! That would ruin their plans... They have to make us think we have some part in it though..
2006-10-13 05:26:52 · answer #5 · answered by idontknow 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I think that would be a good idea.
2006-10-13 05:19:50 · answer #6 · answered by shardf 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree !!
2006-10-13 05:19:41 · answer #7 · answered by IloveMarmite 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋