does every vote really count since it's not a direct democracy?

Question

since we the citizens here in the U.S. arent the ones that actually vote in the new president (the electorial congress does that- and they dont HAVE to vote the way their division does) does every citizen's vote actually count like all the celebrities say?
i mean, we know from recent experience that you can win the popular vote (the citizens) and still lose the election.

am i missing something? this is how it was explained to me.

and why cant we have a direct democracy?!? i understand that long ago it would have been to hard to count that many ballots, but we use computers now, surely it would be more democratic?

Answer 1

Pfo's pretty much right about the rationale except for electors having to vote however the popular vote in their state went. It's probably true in his state, but it's not true for all the states. I think more and more have made that a requirement, but I wouldn't guarantee it could be enforced if the electors defected.

Presidential elections today should be a direct popular vote. It's a national office and communications is good enough today that people at least have the opportunity to learn about the candidates they're voting for.

That doesn't mean a direct democracy would be a good idea for most things. There's no way a person could hold down a full time job and research the issues required to make even a medium size city run effectively. Running a city, state, or nation takes at least some people doing it as a full time job.

That's why it's usually best to take a bigger look at whether a candidate reflects your overall goals rather than nitpick single decisions (unless that decisions actually is indicative of the politicians political outlook).

Answer 2

Interesting fact: Electors are obligated to vote in line with the popular vote. If they don't, it is a crime (misdemeanor).

Counting ballots is not why we don't have direct democracy, or elections based on popular vote. It has to do with the varying population densities of states. If it was a direct democracy, then candidates would only cater to NY and California, both of those states have most of the people. Republicans would be ruined: they'd have to travel and campaign so much to get their message out, whereas Democrats have most of their people concentrated in cities. The current system makes it more fair for the country as a whole, so they don't get neglected for areas with a larger population density.

Answer 3

I couldn't agree with you more. In a direct democracy, my vote would be canceled evenly with my mother's, but because the democrats Pennsylvania win each year, my mother's vote is canceled out entirely because all of the electoral votes go to the democrats. Then my vote is canceled out because Illinois has a different population but the same amount of electoral votes, so in reality, only 1 more democrat than republican needs to carry the whole election for the state.

Bottom line: my vote cancels out my mother's, and florida cancels out my own. We need our cancellation to be 1:1, not 17:1, it's unfair for PA democrats and Republicans, as well as Illinois.

Answer 4

First of all, our government isn't a democracy, it's a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. The articles of confederation is an example of democracy,and they failed miserably. In a true repuyblic, your vote counts. It shows the elected representative what the people vote and they represent the people by placing their ballot.

Answer 5

you're superb - whether - devoid of folk vote casting, the electorates that are chosen will merely be for those that DO vote. The extra those that easily vote, the extra the probabilities are high that who the human beings vote for may be the main suitable one elected. till now 1968 vote casting became into obligatory - in different phrases, you had to vote in case you have been eligible. AFTER 1968 that became into now no longer the case, and vote casting is now VOLUNTARY. vote casting dropped from ninety 5% participation right down to slightly 50% participation. an limitless form of folk experience the kind you do - that in case you do vote it does no longer count selection anyhow. on the grounds that then, there has been ONE time that the guy who gained the widespread vote did no longer win the electoral college votes - decrease back in 2000 whilst Gore would desire to have gained. vote casting in this 3 hundred and sixty 5 days became into notoriously low for Democrats yet very severe for Republicans - and through this discrepency, the Republican candidate gained. If extra Democrats had come to the polls, Gore would have gained. the subsequent election in 2004 had a sixty 4% turnout, the biggest on the grounds that 1968. there became into no query approximately who gained then. the three previous cases till now 1968 that the electoral votes did no longer artwork became into decrease back in the 1800's. In 1824 through fact of corruption, Congress became into compelled to % the President. In 1876 the fallout from the previous election the place the candidate for place of work DIED acceptable till now the elections had affected politics 4 years later and new structures have been being put in place and examined, which additionally led to fractured vote casting in the Electoral college. In 1888 the guy who gained the electoral votes gained through fact they took the residing house state of their opponent through fact their working mate became into additionally from an identical residing house state and extra widespread in that state - and extra individuals of his social gathering voted than individuals of his fighters social gathering by ability of a slender margin. So, in the top, sure your vote counts very lots. whilst it comes time, pass out and vote!

Answer 6

The popular vote should rule.
The Electoral collage should abolished.

Answer 7

Certainly did in Florida. Had Gore won by getting the majority of the votes in Fla., the U.S. would not exist today.