Not really. Only if you live in a swing state.
I do and I plan to vote.
I am non-union so I will only be voting once.
Does Your Vote Matter if You Live in a Red State or a Blue State?
Chris D
2012/08/08 18:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
675 votes
|
|
38% | |||
|
365 votes
|
|
21% | |||
|
740 votes
|
|
42% | |||
Every presidential election year in recent memory comes down to the same crucial swing states: Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Colorado and Nevada... give or take a state or two.
I live in California, so I don't think it really matters who I vote for because the Democrat will almost always win, due to California being a blue state. Of course, I always do vote because it's my civic responsibility, but does it really even matter if you live in an entrenched "red" (Republican) or "blue" (Democrat) state?
CNN.COM reports:
I live in California, so I don't think it really matters who I vote for because the Democrat will almost always win, due to California being a blue state. Of course, I always do vote because it's my civic responsibility, but does it really even matter if you live in an entrenched "red" (Republican) or "blue" (Democrat) state?
CNN.COM reports:
The CNN Electoral Map is CNN's best estimate of the key states that will likely decide the 2012 presidential election. The map will be updated as the campaign progresses. Use the map to predict which candidate will win each state and see who reaches 270 electoral votes first.
Read More: http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/ecalculator#?batt...
Top Opinion
-
Heisenberg 2012/08/08 18:03:02
(I was a Republican election Judge for many years and felt that it was my duty as an American citizen to participate in the election process .)
Here he is getting into the gayer swing of things.
If the election was determined only on popular vote nobody's vote counts more.
At one time, it was. This was the last time that I saw the Republican States as blue and the democrat states as Bolshevik Red which was in 1984. I was overseas in Europe and The Middle East in 1988 and 1992 and didn't see the maps on whatever channel was covering the elections.
This was the 1984 election between Ronald Reagan and Komrade Walter Mondalekovskivich.
I agree that the left leaning states should be depicted in red, it seems more......appropriate.
I'm pleased to meet you.
I honestly believe that through their voting choices, people have proven that they actually enjoy getting F@#$ed by the government. So in that sense, people get exactly what they deserve...& then some. Unfortunately, myself & many others are forced to suffer for those poor/uninformed voting choices. Such is life in a so called "democracy".
A complicated mess that's corruptible. Besides "and to the democracy for which it stands one nation under god" doesn't sound right
But there would/could be problems in a "direct democracy" too. We are a nation of "laws". In a direct democracy, the will of the majority would have power over any/all minorities. Example: Whites could vote to repeal civil rights for minorities. Straight people could criminalize homosexuality, (or discriminate against it, like in California/Proposition 8) etc. But there must be a better balance between representative & direct democracy. Voter initiatives are great, but they are also susceptible to corruption & outside influence/manipulation. (due to the weak minds & short attention span of most people). In any event, the people should have more say in the running of this country. Especially in issues like drug prohibition, war, the economy, property rights, privacy, civil liberty etc. There is a law on the books that allows for a state initiated "constitutional convention" (Google it for more info), though it's never been implemented (almost once/1 state short) &...&&
&&&&
But there would/could be problems in a "direct democracy" too. We are a nation of "laws". In a direct democracy, the will of the majority would have power over any/all minorities. Example: Whites could vote to repeal civil rights for minorities. Straight people could criminalize homosexuality, (or discriminate against it, like in California/Proposition 8) etc. But there must be a better balance between representative & direct democracy. Voter initiatives are great, but they are also susceptible to corruption & outside influence/manipulation. (due to the weak minds & short attention span of most people). In any event, the people should have more say in the running of this country. Especially in issues like drug prohibition, war, the economy, property rights, privacy, civil liberty etc. There is a law on the books that allows for a state initiated "constitutional convention" (Google it for more info), though it's never been implemented (almost once/1 state short) & it's doubtful whether congress, the president & supreme court would ever even allow it to happen. My point is: Just to get something repealed, like.....for example "The War on Drugs", there should be a peaceful way for the will/voice of "the people" to be heard & obeyed.
It shouldn't take an open rebellion or a freak'n civil war just to get something changed. But in many cases, it seems like that would literally be the only alternative. (unfortunately) While other countries are in open rebellion/revolt & fighting for MORE freedom & civil rights, here @ home we're gradually relinquishing our rights, while preaching & even forcing "democracy" abroad. Why is that & why do we tolerate it?
Oh yes, I graduated with Honors in both Bachelor of Science and Master's of Education Degrees.