NationStates

Geneviev wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
It doesn't matter where you are. Your vote matters regardless of what the election is for.

Even Republicans in California?

Yes.

As a Brit, I'm not the most well acquainted with your electoral college and senators and all that, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that yes, voting in the US is useless. I've heard that if you live in the countryside, for example, your vote counts for basically nothing, while if you live in a city, your vote counts for basically everything, on the condition that you support the left. Again, I don't know much about how you do your voting and all that, and why it takes a month to count the votes and why you don't announce them at 4AM in a random school gym, so I may be wrong.

Kowani wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
It doesn't matter where you are. Your vote matters regardless of what the election is for.

Have you considered addressing my arguments?

He's a dogmatic liberal. It's a matter of principle that "every vote matters" for him.

Carrelie wrote:As a Brit, I'm not the most well acquainted with your electoral college and senators and all that, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that yes, voting in the US is useless. I've heard that if you live in the countryside, for example, your vote counts for basically nothing, while if you live in a city, your vote counts for basically everything, on the condition that you support the left. Again, I don't know much about how you do your voting and all that, and why it takes a month to count the votes and why you don't announce them at 4AM in a random school gym, so I may be wrong.

What you have heard is simply not true. The reason it took so long to count ballots is the unprecedented amount of mail in's. Many states did not have the infrastructure for it.

Carrelie wrote:As a Brit, I'm not the most well acquainted with your electoral college and senators and all that, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that yes, voting in the US is useless. I've heard that if you live in the countryside, for example, your vote counts for basically nothing, while if you live in a city, your vote counts for basically everything, on the condition that you support the left. Again, I don't know much about how you do your voting and all that, and why it takes a month to count the votes and why you don't announce them at 4AM in a random school gym, so I may be wrong.

Maybe you should actually read up on American elections from academic sources and not woke complaining on the internet.

Adamede wrote:

Carrelie wrote:As a Brit, I'm not the most well acquainted with your electoral college and senators and all that, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that yes, voting in the US is useless. I've heard that if you live in the countryside, for example, your vote counts for basically nothing, while if you live in a city, your vote counts for basically everything, on the condition that you support the left. Again, I don't know much about how you do your voting and all that, and why it takes a month to count the votes and why you don't announce them at 4AM in a random school gym, so I may be wrong.

Maybe you should actually read up on American elections from academic sources and not woke complaining on the internet.

Please define "woke".

To be honest, I feel like questions like this are dangerous because they promote political apathy, which itself poses an extreme risk to democracy.

Yes, your vote counts. Yes, you should vote. Anyone telling you that your vote is useless has ulterior, anti-democratic motives.

-Astoria- wrote:

Adamede wrote:Maybe you should actually read up on American elections from academic sources and not woke complaining on the internet.

Please define "woke".

I’m on mobile. That was actually meant to say “people complaining on the internet”. Spellcheck is a curse.

Adamede wrote:

-Astoria- wrote:Please define "woke".

I’m on mobile. That was actually meant to say “people complaining on the internet”. Spellcheck is a curse.

Ah; carry on.

San Lumen wrote:

Kowani wrote:Have you considered addressing my arguments?

Yes and I don't understand you point. What are the circumstances where a vote matters to you? Is the example I gave not one of them?

areas where a candidate needs to moderate or change a position so as to get turnout from people who would be otherwise opposed to them.
Think Amy Klobuchar, or Susan Collins.
Albany is not, because the political republican brand is toxic and the democratic candidates don't have to moderate their positions to take power.
There are situations in which the entire republican electorate could never have voted for decades and nothing would have changed from reality.

Amogus

Kowani wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
Yes and I don't understand you point. What are the circumstances where a vote matters to you? Is the example I gave not one of them?

areas where a candidate needs to moderate or change a position so as to get turnout from people who would be otherwise opposed to them.
Think Amy Klobuchar, or Susan Collins.
Albany is not, because the political republican brand is toxic and the democratic candidates don't have to moderate their positions to take power.
There are situations in which the entire republican electorate could never have voted for decades and nothing would have changed from reality.

That doesn’t mean people shouldn’t vote.

To use Albany as an example again the people there obviously like what democrats have done or they wouldn’t have voted for them since 1931.

Idaho is an example of the opposite. Those not republican in Idaho should still vote.

Yeah voting is useless in the US. Democrats and Republicans do nothing but bicker and argue with no compromise, and have all but forgotten voters like me in favor of charcoal grilling lobbyists, the Israeli and Saudi lobbies, and M.A.D.D.

San Lumen wrote:

Kowani wrote:areas where a candidate needs to moderate or change a position so as to get turnout from people who would be otherwise opposed to them.
Think Amy Klobuchar, or Susan Collins.
Albany is not, because the political republican brand is toxic and the democratic candidates don't have to moderate their positions to take power.
There are situations in which the entire republican electorate could never have voted for decades and nothing would have changed from reality.

That doesn’t mean people shouldn’t vote.

To use Albany as an example again the people there obviously like what democrats have done or they wouldn’t have voted for them since 1931.

Idaho is an example of the opposite. Those not republican in Idaho should still vote.

...you have entirely failed to understand my point

Voting is useful at the local level. You only need a small amount of votes to determine who runs the library, the school board, and other local functions. Also how much the fire, parks, and police department get funded. Most people don't vote in these small elections which often count for a lot more than the large elections. It is fairly easy to get goofballs and troublemakers in because of this. Thing can get really off base if the local pastor or elks club is a little wacky and can take control of some of the local politics. The larger the unit, state, federal, the less impact votes tend to have.

-Ra- wrote:To be honest, I feel like questions like this are dangerous because they promote political apathy, which itself poses an extreme risk to democracy.

Yes, your vote counts. Yes, you should vote. Anyone telling you that your vote is useless has ulterior, anti-democratic motives.

Though, it isn't beyond the ken of man to improve on the current political systems that we have. Every change imagined or implemented must not necessarily mean that the system is worse, or even less democratic.

UniversalCommons wrote:Voting is useful at the local level. You only need a small amount of votes to determine who runs the library, the school board, and other local functions. Also how much the fire, parks, and police department get funded. Most people don't vote in these small elections which often count for a lot more than the large elections. It is fairly easy to get goofballs and troublemakers in because of this. Thing can get really off base if the local pastor or elks club is a little wacky and can take control of some of the local politics. The larger the unit, state, federal, the less impact votes tend to have.

Every vote matters in every election no matter where you are.

San Lumen wrote:

UniversalCommons wrote:Voting is useful at the local level. You only need a small amount of votes to determine who runs the library, the school board, and other local functions. Also how much the fire, parks, and police department get funded. Most people don't vote in these small elections which often count for a lot more than the large elections. It is fairly easy to get goofballs and troublemakers in because of this. Thing can get really off base if the local pastor or elks club is a little wacky and can take control of some of the local politics. The larger the unit, state, federal, the less impact votes tend to have.

Every vote matters in every election no matter where you are.

Agreed.

After reading over the last couple pages of debates, I think this discussion would be more enlightening with a clearer definition of what it means for a vote to matter.

Plzen wrote:After reading over the last couple pages of debates, I think this discussion would be more enlightening with a clearer definition of what it means for a vote to matter.

Id like to know that as well. What is peoples definition of a vote mattering?

I would say your vote matters if your district/state is swingable. It matters less if you live in a safe area; primary votes for the dominant party matter more in that case.

San Lumen wrote:

Plzen wrote:After reading over the last couple pages of debates, I think this discussion would be more enlightening with a clearer definition of what it means for a vote to matter.

Id like to know that as well. What is peoples definition of a vote mattering?

To me, whether or not a vote has can influence the outcome of an election.

For example, it's useless to vote in an uncontested election (presuming you can only vote for listed candidates and not write in one), since there's no way to change the outcome: the only candidate running wins.

It less useless in a race where there's multiple candidates running, and the least useless in a race where multiple candidates are running and more than one of them have a good chance of winning the election.

Eukaryotic Cells wrote:I would say your vote matters if your district/state is swingable. It matters less if you live in a safe area; primary votes for the dominant party matter more in that case.

I'd say that's partly true but the general election still matters as well. Sometimes supposedly safe districts or states have flipped.

Esalia wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Id like to know that as well. What is peoples definition of a vote mattering?

To me, whether or not a vote has can influence the outcome of an election.

For example, it's useless to vote in an uncontested election (presuming you can only vote for listed candidates and not write in one), since there's no way to change the outcome: the only candidate running wins.

It less useless in a race where there's multiple candidates running, and the least useless in a race where multiple candidates are running and more than one of them have a good chance of winning the election.

I agree that voting in a uncontested election is worthless. I always leave such columns blank.

Well the electoral collage undermines all us Americans.

If it was, then Biden wouldn't win.