What Does Your Vote Mean to You?

[San Lumen]

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.

Your opinion is heard by casting a ballot

Conciliator position? What’s that going to do in a city like Philadelphia or Hartford and what would be the point? In my state of New York a majority of those who voted chose democrats for the state assembly and senate and statewide offices.

What’s this councilor position going to do in California , Wyoming, Philadelphia or Chicago?

Why even have elections? Just appoint mayors or statewide officers of each party. How would this solve anything? The answer is it wouldn’t.

We have elections for people to chose who they want.

Plus with this ridiculous proposal of yours of canceling elections based on polling why a margin of twenty percent? Why not 15 or 10 or 7

[United Muscovite Nations]

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.

Your opinion is heard by casting a ballot

Conciliator position? What’s that going to do in a city like Philadelphia or Hartford and what would be the point? In my state of New York a majority of those who voted chose democrats for the state assembly and senate and statewide offices.

What’s this councilor position going to do in California , Wyoming, Philadelphia or Chicago?

Why even have elections? Just appoint mayors or statewide officers of each party. How would this solve anything? The answer is it wouldn’t.

We have elections for people to chose who they want.

Plus with this ridiculous proposal of yours of canceling elections based on polling why a margin of twenty percent? Why not 15 or 10 or 7

It is not heard if you get zero representation, which is what you seem to be missing.

Let's say you live in a state that is winner-take-all in the electoral college, the vote is split 51-49. Is it really fair for 49% of the state to get zero representation in the election? That sounds a lot more disenfranchising than just about anything else you could do.

[San Lumen]

Your opinion is heard by casting a ballot

Conciliator position? What’s that going to do in a city like Philadelphia or Hartford and what would be the point? In my state of New York a majority of those who voted chose democrats for the state assembly and senate and statewide offices.

What’s this councilor position going to do in California , Wyoming, Philadelphia or Chicago?

Why even have elections? Just appoint mayors or statewide officers of each party. How would this solve anything? The answer is it wouldn’t.

We have elections for people to chose who they want.

Plus with this ridiculous proposal of yours of canceling elections based on polling why a margin of twenty percent? Why not 15 or 10 or 7

It is not heard if you get zero representation, which is what you seem to be missing.

Let's say you live in a state that is winner-take-all in the electoral college, the vote is split 51-49. Is it really fair for 49% of the state to get zero representation in the election? That sounds a lot more disenfranchising than just about anything else you could do.

If every state was proportional it’s unlikely you’d ever have a majority in the electoral college and it would be thrown to the house and whoever had a majority there would chose their candidate making popular vote even more meaningless

You didn’t answer the rest of my questions. I’d like them please

[United Muscovite Nations]

It is not heard if you get zero representation, which is what you seem to be missing.

Let's say you live in a state that is winner-take-all in the electoral college, the vote is split 51-49. Is it really fair for 49% of the state to get zero representation in the election? That sounds a lot more disenfranchising than just about anything else you could do.

If every state was proportional it’s unlikely you’d ever have a majority in the electoral college and it would be thrown to the house and whoever had a majority there would chose their candidate making popular vote even more meaningless

You didn’t answer the rest of my questions. I’d like them please

A conciliar position would be better because then people would still get representatives.

I don't want representative democracy because the whole thing is a sham where people are brainwashed into thinking they have a voice. If your candidate lost, you have no representation, your interests are not represented. it's a farce.

If every state was proportional, more people would have their voices heard because they'd get representation. If there is no majority, so be it, but the way the system is now, there's no point in voting for the losing candidate, so stop shaming people for not voting in elections where their vote has zero consequence.

[San Lumen]

If every state was proportional it’s unlikely you’d ever have a majority in the electoral college and it would be thrown to the house and whoever had a majority there would chose their candidate making popular vote even more meaningless

You didn’t answer the rest of my questions. I’d like them please

A conciliar position would be better because then people would still get representatives.

I don't want representative democracy because the whole thing is a sham where people are brainwashed into thinking they have a voice. If your candidate lost, you have no representation, your interests are not represented. it's a farce.

If every state was proportional, more people would have their voices heard because they'd get representation. If there is no majority, so be it, but the way the system is now, there's no point in voting for the losing candidate, so stop shaming people for not voting in elections where their vote has zero consequence.

What would this councilor do or even accomplish? In a city like Denver, Philadelphia, Providence or San Francisco?

It’s not a farce. There is a magical thing called email, letters or a phone. I don’t pout and say I’m not voting because my candidate doesn’t win. There were several state senate districts in New York last year considered safe seats or the incumbent unbeatable yet the seat flipped. By they wasted their time right?

Every vote has consequence. The more people vote the more representative it is. How do you know a candidate will lose. That poll could be off.you could just poll republican or blue areas

The crazy method you came up with of canceling elections based on polling why 20 percent? Why not fifteen, ten or seven?

[Telconi]

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.

Many votes are meaningless. Approximately 4.75 million people voted for John Cox for governor last year in my state. John Cox is no more the governor today than he was before the election, thus those 4.75 million votes accomplished absolutely nothing.

I mean, what's the point of an election in which candidates can't discuss issues?

[San Lumen]

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.

Many votes are meaningless. Approximately 4.75 million people voted for John Cox for governor last year in my state. John Cox is no more the governor today than he was before the election, this those 4.75 million votes accomplished absolutely nothing.

I mean, what's the point of an election in which candidates can't discuss issues?

Cox got less votes therefore he is not governor. More people voted for the other person. Simple concept. I am beyond tired of this argument with you

I agree it’s a stupid law regarding judges as when you go to polls you have no idea what they stand for. I think the rational is they want judges to be impartial and not appear biased.

I just vote party line for them. That being said I don’t believe judges should be elected at all but that’s probably a topic for another thread

[The Liberated Territories]

If you don't vote, you can't complain. I vote so I can complain. Viz: The One Percent buys and sells all the politicians, cops and judges so they make, enforce and interpret all the laws. Doesn't mean you can't get anything you want; just that anything you get is something The One Percent wants too.

(Image)

Tfw organizing in a factory and not a government building is the place where you get robbed. Xd

Let me tell you about inflation and taxes my friend.

[United Muscovite Nations]

A conciliar position would be better because then people would still get representatives.

I don't want representative democracy because the whole thing is a sham where people are brainwashed into thinking they have a voice. If your candidate lost, you have no representation, your interests are not represented. it's a farce.

If every state was proportional, more people would have their voices heard because they'd get representation. If there is no majority, so be it, but the way the system is now, there's no point in voting for the losing candidate, so stop shaming people for not voting in elections where their vote has zero consequence.

What would this councilor do or even accomplish? In a city like Denver, Philadelphia, Providence or San Francisco?

It’s not a farce. There is a magical thing called email, letters or a phone. I don’t pout and say I’m not voting because my candidate doesn’t win. There were several state senate districts in New York last year considered safe seats or the incumbent unbeatable yet the seat flipped. By they wasted their time right?

Every vote has consequence. The more people vote the more representative it is. How do you know a candidate will lose. That poll could be off.you could just poll republican or blue areas

The crazy method you came up with of canceling elections based on polling why 20 percent? Why not fifteen, ten or seven?

The council would do the same things the governor does, just by consensus of representatives instead of one representative.

It's a farce when you have no representation in government. The losing side always has no representatives unless you have a way to have proportional representation. That's not democracy, that's tyranny by majority.

>every vote has consequence
Objectively wrong. And a lot of polls are very reliable.

You missed the whole point of the system, which was that it would arrive at the same conclusion as voting. The point I was trying to make is that the people who lose the election don't get any representation.

Again: how is one party getting 49% of the votes, but zero representation fair?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Many votes are meaningless. Approximately 4.75 million people voted for John Cox for governor last year in my state. John Cox is no more the governor today than he was before the election, this those 4.75 million votes accomplished absolutely nothing.

I mean, what's the point of an election in which candidates can't discuss issues?

Cox got less votes therefore he is not governor. More people voted for the other person. Simple concept. I am beyond tired of this argument with you

I agree it’s a stupid law regarding judges as when you go to polls you have no idea what they stand for. I think the rational is they want judges to be impartial and not appear biased.

I just vote party line for them. That being said I don’t believe judges should be elected at all but that’s probably a topic for another thread

Have you ever considered that a government system where a person who only gets 50+1% of the vote gets the entirety of the representation might be flawed?

[Telconi]

Many votes are meaningless. Approximately 4.75 million people voted for John Cox for governor last year in my state. John Cox is no more the governor today than he was before the election, this those 4.75 million votes accomplished absolutely nothing.

I mean, what's the point of an election in which candidates can't discuss issues?

Cox got less votes therefore he is not governor. More people voted for the other person. Simple concept. I am beyond tired of this argument with you

I agree it’s a stupid law regarding judges as when you go to polls you have no idea what they stand for. I think the rational is they want judges to be impartial and not appear biased.

I just vote party line for them. That being said I don’t believe judges should be elected at all but that’s probably a topic for another thread

Perhaps if you didn't provide answers to questions nobody asked you'd be less weary. So what did those people who voted for John Cox accomplish? John Cox isn't governor, Gavin Newsom isn't less of an asshole. In the end their votes were utterly irrelevant.

[San Lumen]

What would this councilor do or even accomplish? In a city like Denver, Philadelphia, Providence or San Francisco?

It’s not a farce. There is a magical thing called email, letters or a phone. I don’t pout and say I’m not voting because my candidate doesn’t win. There were several state senate districts in New York last year considered safe seats or the incumbent unbeatable yet the seat flipped. By they wasted their time right?

Every vote has consequence. The more people vote the more representative it is. How do you know a candidate will lose. That poll could be off.you could just poll republican or blue areas

The crazy method you came up with of canceling elections based on polling why 20 percent? Why not fifteen, ten or seven?

The council would do the same things the governor does, just by consensus of representatives instead of one representative.

It's a farce when you have no representation in government. The losing side always has no representatives unless you have a way to have proportional representation. That's not democracy, that's tyranny by majority.

>every vote has consequence
Objectively wrong. And a lot of polls are very reliable.

You missed the whole point of the system, which was that it would arrive at the same conclusion as voting. The point I was trying to make is that the people who lose the election don't get any representation.

Again: how is one party getting 49% of the votes, but zero representation fair?

1) Thats we already do. We have elections and then the legislature and executive decide what is best for everyone. The problem is people don't always agree. The same goes for mayor and city council

2) I think this argument stems from always losing. If your side won you wouldsn't be saying that. Lets say your party didnt get the most votes in proportional system or one party got 51 percent would you still complain how its unfair and your not represented?

3)who cares if polls are reliable? A election is a poll. Do you not see how such a system of canceling an election based on polling could be abused?

4) You do do get representation. There is a magical thing called a pen and paper, or email or a thing called a phone. The governor of your state is the governor regardless of if you voted for them. The same goes for your representatives in the state capital or Washington.

[Telconi]

The council would do the same things the governor does, just by consensus of representatives instead of one representative.

It's a farce when you have no representation in government. The losing side always has no representatives unless you have a way to have proportional representation. That's not democracy, that's tyranny by majority.

>every vote has consequence
Objectively wrong. And a lot of polls are very reliable.

You missed the whole point of the system, which was that it would arrive at the same conclusion as voting. The point I was trying to make is that the people who lose the election don't get any representation.

Again: how is one party getting 49% of the votes, but zero representation fair?

1) Thats we already do. We have elections and then the legislature and executive decide what is best for everyone. The problem is people don't always agree. The same goes for mayor and city council

2) I think this argument stems from always losing. If your side won you wouldsn't be saying that. Lets say your party didnt get the most votes in proportional system or one party got 51 percent would you still complain how its unfair and your not represented?

3)who cares if polls are reliable? A election is a poll. Do you not see how such a system of canceling an election based on polling could be abused?

4) You do do get representation. There is a magical thing called a pen and paper, or email or a thing called a phone. The governor of your state is the governor regardless of if you voted for them. The same goes for your representatives in the state capital or Washington.

Contrary to your assertion, pens and papers aren't magical. People don't automatically comply with letters they're sent.

[Washington Resistance Army]

4) You do do get representation. There is a magical thing called a pen and paper, or email or a thing called a phone.

Yeah, and when you're someone from the other team you get told to fuck off.

[Telconi]

4) You do do get representation. There is a magical thing called a pen and paper, or email or a thing called a phone.

Yeah, and when you're someone from the other team you get told to fuck off.

BuT eLeCtEd OfFiCiAlS rEpReSeNt EvErYoNe!!!

[Likar]

A chance to express my opinion, even if its a small duty.

[San Lumen]

4) You do do get representation. There is a magical thing called a pen and paper, or email or a thing called a phone.

Yeah, and when you're someone from the other team you get told to fuck off.

No you don’t and if you do those are terrible staff members or representatives

[Washington Resistance Army]

Yeah, and when you're someone from the other team you get told to fuck off.

No you don’t and if you do those are terrible staff members or representatives

Literally every time I've contacted a Democrat to express my thoughts on something (barring a State Senator who was very pleasant to speak with) I've just gotten a "Yes sir, I'll keep your thoughts in mind". Which if you know anything about politics is pretty much the same as telling you to fuck off and they aren't changing their position.

[Telconi]

Yeah, and when you're someone from the other team you get told to fuck off.

No you don’t and if you do those are terrible staff members or representatives

I've sent 18 letters to Gavin Newsom since he's been sworn in, I have received no response from any of them. So tell me again how magical pens and papers are...

[Forsher]

People vote so when they have political opinions people can't come at them with, "But did you vote?"

Also, most of the arguments I know for the rationality of voting ultimately lead to a point where no-one votes at all. They therefore conclude that voting is an irrational behaviour. This is, of course, completely stupid. When the credibility of a system depends on the endogenous affirmation of it (e.g. democracy) people deciding en masse to not participate in the endogenous affirmation is precisely equivalent to destroying the, presumably valued, system. Of course, there's no particular reason why this cannot be the outcome of rational actors... compare the market for lemons or public goods... it's that the benefit of voting is usually framed in terms of political efficacy. That is, it's preference misrepresentation. I do not pretend to be capable of arguing what a better understanding of voter preferences would lead to under the assumption of rational actors.

However, I can do simple Punnett Square-esque game theory. So, my assumption is that there are two voters who represent two different & mutually exclusive political philosophies. I further assume that both voters have the same preferences... they don't want non-democratic society, aren't satisfied when they don't get their way but did not vote and are satisfied that they at least stopped the other person from getting their way when both voted.

That is, they both vote and political impasse is reached. But what happens if there is no value to spite? (Incidentally, classical economics would assume that spite is irrational but in practice people do spite others in many experimental situations... even at cost to themselves.)

I can't remember how to interpret this situation.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The council would do the same things the governor does, just by consensus of representatives instead of one representative.

It's a farce when you have no representation in government. The losing side always has no representatives unless you have a way to have proportional representation. That's not democracy, that's tyranny by majority.

>every vote has consequence
Objectively wrong. And a lot of polls are very reliable.

You missed the whole point of the system, which was that it would arrive at the same conclusion as voting. The point I was trying to make is that the people who lose the election don't get any representation.

Again: how is one party getting 49% of the votes, but zero representation fair?

1) Thats we already do. We have elections and then the legislature and executive decide what is best for everyone. The problem is people don't always agree. The same goes for mayor and city council

2) I think this argument stems from always losing. If your side won you wouldsn't be saying that. Lets say your party didnt get the most votes in proportional system or one party got 51 percent would you still complain how its unfair and your not represented?

3)who cares if polls are reliable? A election is a poll. Do you not see how such a system of canceling an election based on polling could be abused?

4) You do do get representation. There is a magical thing called a pen and paper, or email or a thing called a phone. The governor of your state is the governor regardless of if you voted for them. The same goes for your representatives in the state capital or Washington.

1) It's not what we already do. You elect an executive, and it's an either-or-thing, you either get who you want or you don't.

2) Yes, I would be saying it, if my side won, the other side wouldn't have any representation. And no, I wouldn't complain if we got proportional representation because then at least it would be fair.

3) it's no more prone to abuse than an actual election. People rig those too.

4) They don't represent me, they represent the people who voted for them. The people who voted against them are their political enemies, moreover, it's still different interests, if someone is in the capitol representing rural interests, and I'm an urban voter, they don't represent me.

[San Lumen]

1) Thats we already do. We have elections and then the legislature and executive decide what is best for everyone. The problem is people don't always agree. The same goes for mayor and city council

2) I think this argument stems from always losing. If your side won you wouldsn't be saying that. Lets say your party didnt get the most votes in proportional system or one party got 51 percent would you still complain how its unfair and your not represented?

3)who cares if polls are reliable? A election is a poll. Do you not see how such a system of canceling an election based on polling could be abused?

4) You do do get representation. There is a magical thing called a pen and paper, or email or a thing called a phone. The governor of your state is the governor regardless of if you voted for them. The same goes for your representatives in the state capital or Washington.

1) It's not what we already do. You elect an executive, and it's an either-or-thing, you either get who you want or you don't.

2) Yes, I would be saying it, if my side won, the other side wouldn't have any representation. And no, I wouldn't complain if we got proportional representation because then at least it would be fair.

3) it's no more prone to abuse than an actual election. People rig those too.

4) They don't represent me, they represent the people who voted for them. The people who voted against them are their political enemies, moreover, it's still different interests, if someone is in the capitol representing rural interests, and I'm an urban voter, they don't represent me.

1)no thats not how it works

2) Somehow its fair if the proportional representation means your party never gets the most seats and one party wins a majority?

3) How is your crazy proposal for canceling elections due to polling less prone to abuse?

4) If you really feel that way then get off your soap box and stop complaining. Run for office next time around and make election reform a important issue. Maybe you'll win and you can get a referendum on the ballot to change the system. Its not going to change by magic. And don't say ill never win or a i don't have time. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez didnt think she'd win and yet she did.

and someone from a rural district doesn't represent you if your from an urban district as they are not your representative

[United Muscovite Nations]

1) It's not what we already do. You elect an executive, and it's an either-or-thing, you either get who you want or you don't.

2) Yes, I would be saying it, if my side won, the other side wouldn't have any representation. And no, I wouldn't complain if we got proportional representation because then at least it would be fair.

3) it's no more prone to abuse than an actual election. People rig those too.

4) They don't represent me, they represent the people who voted for them. The people who voted against them are their political enemies, moreover, it's still different interests, if someone is in the capitol representing rural interests, and I'm an urban voter, they don't represent me.

1)no thats not how it works

2) Somehow its fair if the proportional representation means your party never gets the most seats and one party wins a majority?

3) How is your crazy proposal for canceling elections due to polling less prone to abuse?

4) If you really feel that way then get off your soap box and stop complaining. Run for office next time around and make election reform a important issue. Maybe you'll win and you can get a referendum on the ballot to change the system. Its not going to change by magic.

1) Yes it is. If you vote against the winning candidate, you lost the election.
2) It's fair because everyone gets representation in line with the actual results of the election. It's a bad system if 49% of the vote doesn't get any representation in delegates.
3) It's not, but it's honest about not being democratic.
4) No, because not holding political office is a major principle of mine.

Senate elections, presidential elections, etc. aren't done by district, so people with totally different interests than you can take all of the political representation from you.

[Telconi]

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?

That's kinda the problem isn't it?

Balkanized States of America.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Proportional representation is objectively better than winner take all, since it gives third parties a chance to shine, and if your party doesn't have enough seats for a majority, there's something called a Coalition Government, in which similar parties join up together and compromise to best represent the most people.