What Does Your Vote Mean to You?

[Pasong Tirad]

Not much, knowing that the current privately-funded system of campaigning is designed to gatekeep people who come even close to resembling my stature in life out of being able to win a campaign. However, barring actual revolution, if my vote can help make people's lives a tiny bit better then it's not all bad.

But the good news is that in my country the person who gets the most votes actually wins so that's pretty cool, at least.

[Telconi]

It's still democratic, the people still get the government they want, you're just saving everyone a lot of time and money.

Polls are vastly impacted by the sample you take, and can be biased by the question asked.

If a pollster wanted to ensure that a city with a majority Democrat population got a Republican, they could just go to areas that got the highest Republican turnout last election, pick 2000 voters from those districts, ask questions in a specific way and fix the ballot.

That's why democratic elections are the only representative method.

EDIT: Areas are not homogenous, of course. Democrats would be represented in the sample size. But, if pollsters pick their population (rather than randomise), it would likely alter the result quite significantly.

I mean, self inspired voter turnout isn't necessarily representative either.

As for the initial question, nothing really, it's at best a pointless ritual that I engage in because I've been trained to do so.

[The Free Joy State]

Polls are vastly impacted by the sample you take, and can be biased by the question asked.

If a pollster wanted to ensure that a city with a majority Democrat population got a Republican, they could just go to areas that got the highest Republican turnout last election, pick 2000 voters from those districts, ask questions in a specific way and fix the ballot.

That's why democratic elections are the only representative method.

EDIT: Areas are not homogenous, of course. Democrats would be represented in the sample size. But, if pollsters pick their population (rather than randomise), it would likely alter the result quite significantly.

I mean, self inspired voter turnout isn't necessarily representative either.

Well, you're talking to someone who favours Proportional Representation. I'm not arguing the electoral system is perfect.

Less voter disenfranchisement would be better for democracy.

I just think right to cast a free vote is an important one, whether or not people choose to take it.

[Telconi]

I mean, self inspired voter turnout isn't necessarily representative either.

Well, you're talking to someone who favours Proportional Representation. I'm not arguing the electoral system is perfect.

Less voter disenfranchisement would be better for democracy.

I just think right to cast a free vote is an important one, whether or not people choose to take it.

Well it's certainly far from perfect.

In all liklihood, yes, Democracy tends to be based on the whole "People getting to vote" foundation.

[Infected Mushroom]

Absolutely worthless.

A complete waste of time.

Since the literal end result of me personally voting or not is 100 percent the same. Whether it technically “counted” or not doesn’t matter to me. It’s a waste of time.

Would 100 percent sell it if I could (for some reason, some people may get excited at wielding two votes).

[Arstotzzkka]

Total bullshit.

[San Lumen]

Why not just simply have the election?

In some places like Chicago or Minneapolis the election is non partisan.

What your saying is we ought to do anyway with democracy because its costs to much? That's is by far one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard.

It's still democratic, the people still get the government they want, you're just saving everyone a lot of time and money.

It really isn’t. A pollster could rig the poll to get the candidate they want

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Absolutely worthless.

A complete waste of time.

Since the literal end result of me personally voting or not is 100 percent the same. Whether it technically “counted” or not doesn’t matter to me. It’s a waste of time.

Would 100 percent sell it if I could (for some reason, some people may get excited at wielding two votes).

That comes across as massively narcissistic.

[Shanhwa]

Nothing tbh. I live in a solidly blue state that the Democrats would win even if they ran a braindead gopher as their candidate. I just vote in protest more often than not.

Come to Indiana, we have guns, corn, and plenty of forest to hide fully-stocked underground fallout shelters with the size and armory of a military base.

[Ifreann]

At the end of the month I'll be voting for my local councillors and for my Members of European Parliament. Since both votes will be done under our Proportional Representation by Single Transferable Vote system(PR-STV), my vote will count even if my first choice doesn't win. I'll also be voting in a referendum to amend our constitution, a straight Yes/No proposition.


Voting's good and I like it.

[San Lumen]

Absolutely worthless.

A complete waste of time.

Since the literal end result of me personally voting or not is 100 percent the same. Whether it technically “counted” or not doesn’t matter to me. It’s a waste of time.

Would 100 percent sell it if I could (for some reason, some people may get excited at wielding two votes).

That comes across as massively narcissistic.

This is someone who thinks unless a election is decided by one vote it’s pointless to have voted and they should get some sort of monetary reward for voting

[San Lumen]

Total bullshit.

Why?

[The Free Joy State]

Absolutely worthless.

A complete waste of time.

Since the literal end result of me personally voting or not is 100 percent the same. Whether it technically “counted” or not doesn’t matter to me. It’s a waste of time.

Would 100 percent sell it if I could (for some reason, some people may get excited at wielding two votes).

It's not about "someone getting excited to wield two votes"; they would be getting excited about someone giving up what is (for many) their primary opportunity to use their voice to influence the direction their country takes.

After all, if someone could buy one person's vote, why not two, or fifty, or two thousand?

When votes can be bought and sold -- and "one person, one free vote" is no longer the principle -- that's the point when votes truly do count for nothing.

[Pinch Me]

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.

I am suggesting a person who votes while knowing only one or even none of the candidate's polices. This vote is meaningless and it would be better for this person not to vote at all.

[San Lumen]

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.

I am suggesting a person who votes while knowing only one or even none of the candidate's polices. This vote is meaningless and it would be better for this person not to vote at all.

No vote is meaningless.

In New York like many other states we vote for judges. We don't vote for our highest court the Court of Appeals as its appointed by the governor. State law prohibits judges from discussing issues on the during the campaign. By your logic every vote for them is a meaningless vote.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's still democratic, the people still get the government they want, you're just saving everyone a lot of time and money.

It really isn’t. A pollster could rig the poll to get the candidate they want

So could the government with an election.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I am suggesting a person who votes while knowing only one or even none of the candidate's polices. This vote is meaningless and it would be better for this person not to vote at all.

No vote is meaningless.

In New York like many other states we vote for judges. We don't vote for our highest court the Court of Appeals as its appointed by the governor. State law prohibits judges from discussing issues on the during the campaign. By your logic every vote for them is a meaningless vote.

If a vote has zero impact on the practical, it is meaningless, because it does nothing.

[San Lumen]

It really isn’t. A pollster could rig the poll to get the candidate they want

So could the government with an election.

And that would be fraud. Elections in the US are not rigged by ballot tampering very often such as in NC-9

No vote is meaningless.

In New York like many other states we vote for judges. We don't vote for our highest court the Court of Appeals as its appointed by the governor. State law prohibits judges from discussing issues on the during the campaign. By your logic every vote for them is a meaningless vote.

If a vote has zero impact on the practical, it is meaningless, because it does nothing.

Every vote maters. No vote is meaningless.

in Chicago 73 percent voted for Lori Lightfoot. It shows she has a massive mandate and people wanted change. Why should any one vote matter more than another?

Do you not see the flaws in your idea that someone who wants to get a Republican mayor of a Democratic city they could just go to red areas and poll there and say look the people want change.

It's far simpler and fairer to hold an election. If the Governor of New York gets 60 percent by winning 16 counties then so be it. That's how the people choose. Its totally ridiculous and absurd to say we are going to only hold elections in competitive areas or states

Kendra Horn of Oklahoma and Joe Cunningham of South Carolina wouldn't be in Congress today via your undemocratic method. By your logic the general election would be canceled because its uncompetitive district.

I don't see why we can't just hold the election. If 75 percent of people in Hartford want to vote for the Democratic why shouldn't we let them? To cite cost is one of the dumbest arguments against democracy ive ever heard.

and like I said before an election is a poll hence why we say "going to the polls."

[United Muscovite Nations]

So could the government with an election.

And that would be fraud. Elections in the US are not rigged by ballot tampering very often such as in NC-9

If a vote has zero impact on the practical, it is meaningless, because it does nothing.

Every vote maters. No vote is meaningless.

in Chicago 73 percent voted for Lori Lightfoot. It shows she has a massive mandate and people wanted change. Why should any one vote matter more than another?

Do you not see the flaws in your idea that someone who wants to get a Republican mayor of a Democratic city they could just go to red areas and poll there and say look the people want change.

It's far simpler and fairer to hold an election. If the Governor of New York gets 60 percent by winning 16 counties then so be it. That's how the people choose. Its totally ridiculous and absurd to say we are going to only hold elections in competitive areas or states

Kendra Horn of Oklahoma and Joe Cunningham of South Carolina wouldn't be in Congress today via your undemocratic method. By your logic the general election would be canceled because its uncompetitive district.

I don't see why we can't just hold the election. If 75 percent of people in Hartford want to vote for the Democratic why shouldn't we let them? To cite cost is one of the dumbest arguments against democracy ive ever heard.

and like I said before an election is a poll hence why we say "going to the polls."

What is the point of voting in an election you know you're going to lose? It doesn't change anything, it's just a complete waste of time. If you want to make those votes matter, make it all proportional representation.

But if you're not, don't try to shame me for not voting in an election where my vote has no impact.

You keep saying votes for overwhelmingly losing candidates are meaningful, but you haven't provided any reason why they are.

[Pinch Me]

I am suggesting a person who votes while knowing only one or even none of the candidate's polices. This vote is meaningless and it would be better for this person not to vote at all.

No vote is meaningless.

In New York like many other states we vote for judges. We don't vote for our highest court the Court of Appeals as its appointed by the governor. State law prohibits judges from discussing issues on the during the campaign. By your logic every vote for them is a meaningless vote.

If you as a voter have chosen not to discern or are unable to discern the impact that voting for a particular candidate has, how is the vote meaningful? I am considering meaning to depend on the voter not someone else's interpretation of the vote. A vote may have impact depending on the powers of the elected office but has no meaning from the perspective of a voter if that impact is not understood by the voter before placing the vote.

[Ifreann]

...make it all proportional representation.

Yes, do it, America!

[San Lumen]

And that would be fraud. Elections in the US are not rigged by ballot tampering very often such as in NC-9

Every vote maters. No vote is meaningless.

in Chicago 73 percent voted for Lori Lightfoot. It shows she has a massive mandate and people wanted change. Why should any one vote matter more than another?

Do you not see the flaws in your idea that someone who wants to get a Republican mayor of a Democratic city they could just go to red areas and poll there and say look the people want change.

It's far simpler and fairer to hold an election. If the Governor of New York gets 60 percent by winning 16 counties then so be it. That's how the people choose. Its totally ridiculous and absurd to say we are going to only hold elections in competitive areas or states

Kendra Horn of Oklahoma and Joe Cunningham of South Carolina wouldn't be in Congress today via your undemocratic method. By your logic the general election would be canceled because its uncompetitive district.

I don't see why we can't just hold the election. If 75 percent of people in Hartford want to vote for the Democratic why shouldn't we let them? To cite cost is one of the dumbest arguments against democracy ive ever heard.

and like I said before an election is a poll hence why we say "going to the polls."

What is the point of voting in an election you know you're going to lose? It doesn't change anything, it's just a complete waste of time. If you want to make those votes matter, make it all proportional representation.

But if you're not, don't try to shame me for not voting in an election where my vote has no impact.

You keep saying votes for overwhelmingly losing candidates are meaningful, but you haven't provided any reason why they are.

Several members of congress would not be serving via your proposal as the election in that district would be canceled as it’s supposedly a non competitive district.

The point of voting is to express an opinion.

Do you not see how your ridiculous idea could be exploited to win elections? Why do you hate democracy so much?

An election is a poll and it’s the only poll that matters

[United Muscovite Nations]

What is the point of voting in an election you know you're going to lose? It doesn't change anything, it's just a complete waste of time. If you want to make those votes matter, make it all proportional representation.

But if you're not, don't try to shame me for not voting in an election where my vote has no impact.

You keep saying votes for overwhelmingly losing candidates are meaningful, but you haven't provided any reason why they are.

Several members of congress would not be serving via your proposal as the election in that district would be canceled as it’s supposedly a non competitive district.

The point of voting is to express an opinion.

Do you not see how your ridiculous idea could be exploited to win elections? Why do you hate democracy so much?

An election is a poll and it’s the only poll that matters

The point of voting is to have your opinion heard, it's not being heard if your vote has no impact. Again, get rid of winner-take-all, and I'd love to vote in elections, but until then there is zero point in me doing so.

[San Lumen]

Several members of congress would not be serving via your proposal as the election in that district would be canceled as it’s supposedly a non competitive district.

The point of voting is to express an opinion.

Do you not see how your ridiculous idea could be exploited to win elections? Why do you hate democracy so much?

An election is a poll and it’s the only poll that matters

The point of voting is to have your opinion heard, it's not being heard if your vote has no impact. Again, get rid of winner-take-all, and I'd love to vote in elections, but until then there is zero point in me doing so.

It is heard by casting a ballot
Yeah everyone outside of the sixteen counties Cuomo won last year should have just stayed home.

What would you have? Two separate governors or mayors?

[United Muscovite Nations]

The point of voting is to have your opinion heard, it's not being heard if your vote has no impact. Again, get rid of winner-take-all, and I'd love to vote in elections, but until then there is zero point in me doing so.

Yeah everyone outside of the sixteen counties Cuomo won last year should have just stayed home.

What would you have? Two separate governors?

That would be great, probably even more, make it a conciliar position. It makes no sense to award zero representation to such a large part of the population.