Vote!!

[LivingAlmostLarge]

I've friends who were democrats in OK....they live in FL now and their vote finally matters. But blue in OK? Hahahaha. Try being Republican in CA? Hahaha. Again I say I'm not surprised people don't vote. After all majority of us don't matter. We can only spectate and pray that those in swing states fight for what we want.

[disneysteve]

I have NEVER seen an ad for president.

Consider yourself LUCKY! Trust me. You aren't missing anything that you actually want to have. We are bombarded with advertising, all day, every day. TV, radio, robocalls. It's insane. And it starts months before the election. I would love to see it all stop, or maybe be restricted to 30 days before the election (although they'd have to account for early voting).

[cypher1]

Rather than always complaining about how many people don't vote, maybe we should start focusing on why they don't vote. Millions of them have an extremely valid reason - their votes truly don't matter.

[/SUP]

The majority of people I know (on both sides) that didn't vote in 2016, flat out said neither candidates represented their values or views and purposely chose not to vote. In some ways I can't argue with that stance. That same crowd will then rant about how messed up this country is with the current president, and that it should never have gotten to this point (agreed). I usually reply with "Did you actually vote?" *crickets*

[disneysteve]

The majority of people I know (on both sides) that didn't vote in 2016, flat out said neither candidates represented their values or views and purposely chose not to vote.

To those people, I say this:

"Time to remember the best voting advice I ever heard: voting isn't marriage, it's public transport. You're not waiting for "the one" who's absolutely perfect; you're getting the bus, and if there isn't one to your destination, you don't not travel - you take the one going closest."

[cypher1]

To those people, I say this:

"Time to remember the best voting advice I ever heard: voting isn't marriage, it's public transport. You're not waiting for "the one" who's absolutely perfect; you're getting the bus, and if there isn't one to your destination, you don't not travel - you take the one going closest."

I agree that there will never be the "perfect" candidate that will align 100% with your values or stances. Or if anyone found that person, more power to them. But that doesn't mean people should just settle and/ or pick the lesser evil between two major parties as the only options.

So to an extent, I do understand why others would choose not to vote, even if I don't agree with it. The same goes for them arguing I'm just wasting my vote on a 3rd party candidate I believe in, who doesn't have a chance. The difference is I can sleep good at night knowing I applied my civic duty to vote for someone who best aligns with my beliefs, while never compromising those stances. In the end I believe all of us should strive for that type of goal, regardless of what party we may affiliate ourselves with.

[kork13]

Why is it wrong for a presidential election to be decided by urban centers? ...... Why is it unfair for people living in a city to be worth less than those living in the country? Isn't it at the end of the day all equal? One vote = one person? Why is it imperative that those living in smaller states or rural have a greater say?

For the same reason that the people are represented differently between the Senate & House. It provides balance between the popular vote & state representation.

Consider that the electoral college already accounts significantly for areas with large populations -- each state gets 1 elector got each rep in the House & Senate..... # of House reps is directly determined by population, but no fewer than 1 per state, and # of senators is simply 2 per state. So populous states get a large influence, but small states at least have a voice.

The reason for the importance of swing states is simply that CA, NY, WA, OR, ..... almost always vote predominantly Democrat, while TX, OK, UT, GA, ..... almost always vote predominantly Republican. The problem is actually the winner-take-all policy. There are places in TX & GA (for example) that frequently vote strongly Democratic (Austin & Atlanta), and likewise in CA & OR (North CA & all of OR except Portland/Eugene) that mostly vote Republican. But those areas don't matter because it's all or nothing. Therefore, because there's basically no chance of taking enough of the state to win it outright, candidates don't waste their time & money on those states.

Switching to a proportional vote would help to equalize the influence of those outlier areas, and force candidates to pay attention to those states, because suddenly Austin, Houston, and the Tex-Mex border areas could earn Democrats Texan electoral votes. Same goes for California & the Republicans. It would create a dynamic that does emphasize the popular vote within the state alot more, but still preserves the ability of less populous states to have some influence.

[kork13]

Absolutely! I can't imagine being married to someone who had opposite views from me on vital topics like health care, equality/racism/civil rights, reproductive rights, gun control, etc.

I meant to comment on this earlier... While I assumed that would be the common answer, I grew up in a "house divided" and (at least from my perspective) it didn't really matter much. My father has always been staunchly conservative, while my mother was somewhat liberal (call it "left-center"). She mostly voted Democrat (with a few "stray marks"), while he basically always voted Republican. She periodically donated to some liberal causes & the DNC, he was vocal about conservative issues. They simply accepted their differences of opinion, and mostly agreed to disagree on certain issues.

My wife & I are more closely aligned (she's mostly conservative-minded with a few caveats, while I'm dead center & vote all over the place), but we've sorta arrived at a similar arrangement as my parents. We disagree somewhat on a few topics, but respect the differences of opinion & let it be. I'm not sure how prevalent that dynamic might be, but judging from responses so far, probably less common than I might think.

[rennigade]

If you think one candidate this time is better than the other, you're delusional. So what happens then? People who do vote will simply vote for their team. Thats how it works, thats how it always worked and thats how it will continue to work. A two party system is stupid and makes no sense. We no longer live in a time where we receive our news via a messenger on a horse. There's no need for a single figure head to represent 300,000,000+ people. Again, its a joke.

Did you ever see those videos on youtube of people being interviewed where the interviewer will tell them certain things that person X said. If the people likes person X, they will say how great it is. Then the interviewer will say "would you believe me if person Y said those things?" Every single time, the person will make excuses why they still hate that person/party and those wonderful amazing things or policies that person did does not matter.

We are tribal. Its still hard coded in us. We pick teams and thats all that matters. Policy doesnt matter. Im not sure how to fix that or if it will ever be fixed. Thats why I think voting is a joke, especially for presidency.

[disneysteve]

If you think one candidate this time is better than the other, you're delusional.

I would say anybody who can't see stark differences between the candidates is delusional.

People who do vote will simply vote for their team.

I think that's true, but I also think there is good reason for that. The "teams" are dramatically different. They represent and support very different viewpoints. Are there moderate Democrats who share some Republican views? Sure. Are there moderate Republicans who share some Democrat views? Sure. But as a party, they are distinctly different.

We've seen over and over that once in office, elected officials are highly likely to vote along party lines. Look at the results from almost any House or Senate vote on almost any issue. The numbers are clearly split along party lines. It's a huge story in the news when someone breaks from their party and votes the other way. That being the case, I will always vote for my party's candidates because overall they are far more likely to represent my views.

I wish there were no parties. I wish candidates just ran on their views and beliefs and we picked the ones we liked best. That would be awesome, but until that day arrives, we need to work with what we've got. It's a two-party system. There are two viable candidates running for President. Everyone should pick one and vote. One of them is going to win. Everyone should register their opinion on which one it should be.

[rennigade]

It's a two-party system. There are two viable candidates running for President. Everyone should pick one and vote. One of them is going to win. Everyone should register their opinion on which one it should be.

That mentality is the reason its a two party system. Its not supposed to be. There is supposed to be a third party but the other two teams are so corrupt that they all but snuffed it out. You can vote for someone other than dementia joe or lunatic trump. But again, mainstream has convinced everyone that you cant, and you will hear people say how you're throwing a vote away if you vote for anyone else. This us vs them mentality has to stop.

People should be more concerned about the riots that are non stop and keep happening without recourse. They are gaining traction and growing. People realize they can destroy entire cities and they wont be stopped. If it keeps growing, it wont matter who is in office. We'll be at war with ourselves and it will be a prime time for another power to take us over.

[disneysteve]

People should be more concerned about the riots that are non stop and keep happening without recourse.

People should be more concerned with addressing the societal issues that have led to the riots.

[scfr]

Amen

Be an engaged citizen. Don't just demand your rights. Fulfill your civic duties.

Vote.
Pay your Taxes.
Show up for Jury Duty when you get that Summons.

Sometimes these acts are inconvenient and/or costly. Sometimes very costly. So get ready - get your personal finances in order. Be ready & willing to be inconvenienced.

[disneysteve]

Show up for Jury Duty when you get that Summons.

Sometimes these acts are inconvenient and/or costly. Sometimes very costly. So get ready - get your personal finances in order. Be ready & willing to be inconvenienced.

I'll admit to struggling with this one. I wish they could come up with a better system for juries. Nobody should have it cost them hundreds or thousands of dollars to do their civic duty.

I've gone for jury duty once. I spent 8 hours in a sparsely furnished room filled with other people. We watched HGTV all day. Late in the afternoon, we finally got called in to the courtroom, told about the case, and each had an opportunity to say why we couldn't serve. I gave the exact same reason I had given in writing previously and been denied, but the judge excused me. So I lost 12 hours of work, which means the day cost me about $1,500 plus lunch plus a day of PTO. That's a crappy system.

[rennigade]

People should be more concerned with addressing the societal issues that have led to the riots.

What does smashing windows, looting stores and burning down buildings have to do with societal issues? What does marching on freeways and shutting down traffic have to do with societal issues? So thats the best way to get a message across? Anarchy and no rules?

If you think for one second that the rioting has anything to do with BLM, you're mistaken. The blm movement (which everyone agrees is legit and makes sense) is no more. Now, you have anarchists and people who want chaos running the show. Real BLM people do not burn down cities.

[disneysteve]

If you think for one second that the rioting has anything to do with BLM, you're mistaken. The blm movement (which everyone agrees is legit and makes sense) is no more. Now, you have anarchists and people who want chaos running the show. Real BLM people do not burn down cities.

I agree completely. The protestors are not the rioters.

And no, I don't believe that everyone agrees the BLM movement is legit and makes sense, which is part of the problem. There is a significant segment of the population that doesn't agree with that at all. POTUS himself recently said he doesn't believe there is racism in our system. He has also called BLM a "symbol of hate". That sort of rhetoric helps fuel the unrest.