What Does Your Vote Mean to You?

[San Lumen]

That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t vote.

With that line of thinking why bother holding elections in some areas?

That's actually a good question, why should we bother in some areas?

Firstly It’s required by law.

Secondly if 75 percent or more want to vote for the democratic candidate for mayor of New Haven or Hartford, Connecticut both of which are holding mayoral elections this year what rationale do you have to deny it to them?

[United Muscovite Nations]

That's actually a good question, why should we bother in some areas?

Firstly It’s required by law.

Secondly if 75 percent or more want to vote for the democratic candidate for mayor of New Haven or Hartford, Connecticut both of which are holding mayoral elections this year what rationale do you have to deny it to them?

Why waste their time and not just give them what they want?

[Esternial]

Voting here is mandatory, so I always vote.

You're always free to submit a blank vote, but I always make a choice. Your individual vote might be a single drop of water in a bucket, but enough votes can fill it up just fine.

My vote is worth as much as anyone else's, but if you add them up they can make a difference.

[San Lumen]

Firstly It’s required by law.

Secondly if 75 percent or more want to vote for the democratic candidate for mayor of New Haven or Hartford, Connecticut both of which are holding mayoral elections this year what rationale do you have to deny it to them?

Why waste their time and not just give them what they want?

Because we don’t simply anoint someone to elected office in a democracy and what if hypothetically a majority decided they didn’t want the democrat however unlikely? We could say the same about Philadelphia also holding a mayoral election this year

An election is still an election even if someone wins overwhelmingly. It wouldn’t be democratic to simply have the primary in Hartford or Philadelphia and no general election even if the primary tantamount to election

[United Muscovite Nations]

Why waste their time and not just give them what they want?

Because we don’t simply anoint someone to elected office in a democracy and what if hypothetically a majority diced they didn’t want the democrat however unlikely?

An election is still an election even if someone wins overwhelmingly. It wouldn’t be democratic to simply have the primary in Hartford and no general election even if its tantamount to election

That's why you could have polling, most of the time you know who will win ahead of the time in a state.

It may still be an election, but it's pointless.

[San Lumen]

Because we don’t simply anoint someone to elected office in a democracy and what if hypothetically a majority diced they didn’t want the democrat however unlikely?

An election is still an election even if someone wins overwhelmingly. It wouldn’t be democratic to simply have the primary in Hartford and no general election even if its tantamount to election

That's why you could have polling, most of the time you know who will win ahead of the time in a state.

It may still be an election, but it's pointless.

No election is ever pointless. What your suggesting is whoever wins the primary for mayor in Philadelphia or Hartford simply win by default and there be no general election?

[United Muscovite Nations]

That's why you could have polling, most of the time you know who will win ahead of the time in a state.

It may still be an election, but it's pointless.

No election is ever pointless. What your suggesting is whoever wins the primary for mayor in Philadelphia or Hartford simply win by default and there be no general election?

If the polling shows an overwhelming victory will happen then yeah, why not? The result will always be the same.

[Mystic Warriors]

A middle finger to the Republicans

[San Lumen]

No election is ever pointless. What your suggesting is whoever wins the primary for mayor in Philadelphia or Hartford simply win by default and there be no general election?

If the polling shows an overwhelming victory will happen then yeah, why not? The result will always be the same.

Because it would be undemocratic. Should we just cancel the general election in Delaware for Governor next year since it’s unlikely the incumbent will lose?

Your disenfranchising whole areas of the state. In Philadelphia and Hartford’s case if 25 percent or so want to vote republican for mayor why shouldn’t they be able to. Your not presenting a very compelling case

[United Muscovite Nations]

If the polling shows an overwhelming victory will happen then yeah, why not? The result will always be the same.

Because it would be undemocratic. Should we just cancel the general election in Delaware for Governor next year since it’s unlikely the incumbent will lose?

Your disenfranchising whole areas of the state. In Philadelphia and Hartford’s case if 25 percent or so want to vote republican for mayor why shouldn’t they be able to. Your not presenting a very compelling case

It wouldn't be undemocratic, the people are still getting who they want, you're just cutting out the extra, unnecessary steps.

[San Lumen]

Because it would be undemocratic. Should we just cancel the general election in Delaware for Governor next year since it’s unlikely the incumbent will lose?

Your disenfranchising whole areas of the state. In Philadelphia and Hartford’s case if 25 percent or so want to vote republican for mayor why shouldn’t they be able to. Your not presenting a very compelling case

It wouldn't be undemocratic, the people are still getting who they want, you're just cutting out the extra, unnecessary steps.

And those who vote the other way are unable to vote. Andrew Cuomo was all but assured of winning a third term last year. He won just 16 counties and got 60 percent of the vote. Our attorney general was likely to win too and got 62 percent.

Should we have not had the Governor and attorney general on the ballot and majority of counties have no one to vote for Governor or attorney general?

[United Muscovite Nations]

It wouldn't be undemocratic, the people are still getting who they want, you're just cutting out the extra, unnecessary steps.

1) And those who vote the other way are unable to vote. Andrew Cuomo was all but assured of winning a third term last year. He won just 16 counties and got 60 percent of the vote. Our attorney general was likely to win too and got 62 percent.

2) Should we have not had the Governor and attorney general on the ballot and majority of counties have no one to vote for Governor or attorney general?

1) So? Their vote literally doesn't matter. In a winner-take-all election, only the votes for the winner matter. You may as well not even count the votes for the loser because it doesn't matter how many their are as long as they lost.
2) Sure.

[San Lumen]

1) And those who vote the other way are unable to vote. Andrew Cuomo was all but assured of winning a third term last year. He won just 16 counties and got 60 percent of the vote. Our attorney general was likely to win too and got 62 percent.

2) Should we have not had the Governor and attorney general on the ballot and majority of counties have no one to vote for Governor or attorney general?

1) So? Their vote literally doesn't matter. In a winner-take-all election, only the votes for the winner matter. You may as well not even count the votes for the loser because it doesn't matter how many their are as long as they lost.
2) Sure.

I’ve heard my share of dumb arguments but this has to be one of the stupidest.
To clarify your saying we should hold elections based on polling and cancel the general if shows one side will win?

Upsets can happen and your idea amounts to mass disenfranchisement. Votes still count no matter the margin.

How would you count votes on election night?

[United Muscovite Nations]

1) So? Their vote literally doesn't matter. In a winner-take-all election, only the votes for the winner matter. You may as well not even count the votes for the loser because it doesn't matter how many their are as long as they lost.
2) Sure.

I’ve heard my share of dumb arguments but this has to be one of the stupidest.
To clarify your saying we should hold elections based on polling and cancel the general if shows one side will win?

Upsets can happen and your idea amounts to mass disenfranchisement. Votes still count no matter the margin.

How would you count votes on election night?

If it shows one side will clearly win, say, if there is a margin of victory greater than 20%.

Explain how votes for the losing candidate matter if there's no proportional representation.

[Conserative Morality]

Because we don’t simply anoint someone to elected office in a democracy and what if hypothetically a majority diced they didn’t want the democrat however unlikely?

An election is still an election even if someone wins overwhelmingly. It wouldn’t be democratic to simply have the primary in Hartford and no general election even if its tantamount to election

That's why you could have polling, most of the time you know who will win ahead of the time in a state.

It may still be an election, but it's pointless.

I mean, an election is just a poll when you get down to it.

[San Lumen]

I’ve heard my share of dumb arguments but this has to be one of the stupidest.
To clarify your saying we should hold elections based on polling and cancel the general if shows one side will win?

Upsets can happen and your idea amounts to mass disenfranchisement. Votes still count no matter the margin.

How would you count votes on election night?

If it shows one side will clearly win, say, if there is a margin of victory greater than 20%.

Explain how votes for the losing candidate matter if there's no proportional representation.

It’s still disenfranchisement no matter how you spin it.

They matter for the simple fact they were cast.

[United Muscovite Nations]

If it shows one side will clearly win, say, if there is a margin of victory greater than 20%.

Explain how votes for the losing candidate matter if there's no proportional representation.

It’s still disenfranchisement no matter how you spin it.

They matter for the simple fact they were cast.

I disagree, they matter if they have any kind of impact on the practical. They don't.

[Hakons]

This is a good civic view to have on voting. American government is owned by the people. Some cynically say government is owned by special interests, but I think it is best to be optimistic and not give in to pessimism that only discourages people not to vote. Having a vote is tremendous power and the best development in governing systems ever devised.

Where I differ is I don't despise Trump, because I don't think we should despise people. This is a little difficult to maintain, especially for figures like Stalin or Hitler, but they are thankfully dead. One can despise ideas, however, and Trump's immigration policy has been pretty despicable. However, I'm Republican and support many of his other policies.

Religiously, voting is an obligation. To not vote is to not fulfill one's role and duty to the community. It's not a sin per say to not vote, but it's against Church social teaching.

A vote doesn't mean anything if it's based on ignorance. Person A tells Person B they won't vote. B tells A that they should vote. A goes and votes for the candidate B thinks is the worst.

You can't just say "everyone should vote" without specifying a candidate they should vote for and why.

The moral obligation is not to vote, but to vote for the right candidate!

A vote is a vote. I'm not the one to decide if it is ignorant or not. People make decisions in a rational manner, so people vote rationally. Just because someone doesn't vote how you want or doesn't use the same metrics you prefer doesn't make them ignorant voters. Anyone who votes is a rational voter, because voting rationally just means voting based on whatever reason you deem fit as an individual.

A Catholic should try to vote for the right candidate, but the Church obviously can't endorse a political party, especially in America's system, where both parties contradict Church teaching on major matters of faith. One is obligated to vote, and to vote with the teachings of the Church in mind, but Catholics are left with a bit of a conundrum when it comes to figuring who is actually the right candidate to vote for. I think views on abortion make it clear who a Catholic should vote for, but then again almost half of Catholics disagree with me.

[San Lumen]

It’s still disenfranchisement no matter how you spin it.

They matter for the simple fact they were cast.

I disagree, they matter if they have any kind of impact on the practical. They don't.

So if your a republican in Hartford or Philadelphia for example you shouldn’t be able to vote at all and have no candidates?

How would you count votes on election night? The results in the Governor election in New York last year show were the incumbent is liked and not liked. That’s another example of how every vote matters

[United Muscovite Nations]

I disagree, they matter if they have any kind of impact on the practical. They don't.

So if your a republican in Hartford or Philadelphia for example you shouldn’t be able to vote at all and have no candidates?

How would you count votes on election night? The results in the Governor election in New York last year show were the incumbent is liked and not liked. That’s another example of how every vote matters

Why does any of that matter? It has no practical ramification in a winner-take-all election. Zip, nada.

[Conserative Morality]

So if your a republican in Hartford or Philadelphia for example you shouldn’t be able to vote at all and have no candidates?

How would you count votes on election night? The results in the Governor election in New York last year show were the incumbent is liked and not liked. That’s another example of how every vote matters

Why does any of that matter? It has no practical ramification in a winner-take-all election. Zip, nada.

Culture and institutional norms matter. In a functioning democracy, politicians and policymakers adjust their behavior based on their margin of victory, rather than pulling up the proscription lists after winning at 50.1% of the vote.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Why does any of that matter? It has no practical ramification in a winner-take-all election. Zip, nada.

Culture and institutional norms matter. In a functioning democracy, politicians and policymakers adjust their behavior based on their margin of victory, rather than pulling up the proscription lists after winning at 50.1% of the vote.

Hence why I said elections should be decided this way only if polling shows a margin of victory greater than 20%.

[The Liberated Territories]

Nothing really. I'd sell it if I could.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Considering the fact that there seems to be only the "lesser of the two evils" nowadays, I don't think my vote means a whole lot to me. I get a selection of candidates, and I vote for the one I dislike the least.

[Hakons]

Considering the fact that there seems to be only the "lesser of the two evils" nowadays, I don't think my vote means a whole lot to me. I get a selection of candidates, and I vote for the one I dislike the least.

The way the Founders intended