Think Your Vote Matters? Think Again
Editor’s Note: The non-partisan Web site “Opposing Views” offers readers a look at all sides of the debate on a variety of issues. This is the part of ongoing series of posts from the Web site that will appear in the FOX Forum.
By Dr. John R. Koza
Chairman, National Popular Vote
You’ve become enthralled with John McCain and Barack Obama’s struggle to win the presidency. Along with record numbers of Americans, you tuned into the debates, attended rallies and registered to vote, many of you for the first time. Yet in all likelihood your vote won’t matter because this historic election will be decided by voters in only six or so closely divided “battleground states.”
The reason the vast majority of states don’t matter in presidential elections stems from a winner-take-all rule (Nebraska and Maine being the notable exceptions). This rule awards all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes. Consequently, presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, or even pay attention to the concerns of states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. This harsh effect of the winner-take-all rule became clear in the first week of October when McCain’s Michigan state director Al Ribeiro explained McCain’s abrupt cessation of campaigning in Michigan: “The campaign must decide where it can best utilize its limited resources with the goal of winning nationally.”
Of course, voters in 36 of the 50 states never mattered, even before the 2008 presidential election began. Michigan just discovered the harsh political reality a little later. As early as spring 2008, The New York Times reported that both major political parties were in agreement that there would be at most 14 battleground states in 2008. In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in just five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
The best and most direct way to fix our broken system is to elect the president by a national popular vote. Under a national popular vote, every person’s vote, in every state, would be equally important, regardless of political party.
Every vote would be equal, and politicians would be forced to address the concerns of every voter. There would be no red states, no blue states, and no battleground states.
It’s crucial to remember that the winner-take-all rule is not in the U.S. Constitution, but simply state law. That’s why we support the National Popular Vote bill, which would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia). The National Popular Vote bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). It is currently being debated in all 50 states and has been enacted by four states- Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland.
It’s time to reform the current system and do what more than 70 percent of the public has long supported – elect the president by a national popular vote.
41 comments:
Dear Mr.Yang,
The article had the upmost truth in it. Polititians are not running in certain states knowing that they have lost them because they are a red or blue state. If we had the popular vote today, we would see Obama in Texas tring to gain that upperhand in the race, and McCain in California tring to sway the people otherwise. Although the main problem is that "stupid" people will always vote on looks and how much they like that person, not their ideals are good or not. It would be a much better idea if it was implemeneted on states like California, NY, Texas, or Florida, to remove some of that power they have over other smaller states.
-Wilson Rodriguez
13772
After reading this article I now believe that it would be in our nation’s best interest if we were to start electing our president based on the popular vote. Just the thought of people taking the time to learn about political issues and then voting, but later realizing that their vote did not count is really upsetting. I really like the idea that every vote will count equally and the fact that the candidates will need to campaign in all 50 states instead of only campaigning in the states that they think they could potentially win.
#13868
Its true what the article says. Many people vote on looks instead of what their issues are. Many people are ignorant about this, they prefer to vote on the person that has the most experience or the one that looks like our next president or the "tallest" one. In the article it said that only some states were going to count and not the rest. People shouldn't be saying that because it encourages people to not get involve in politics since their vote is not really going to count. I believe that all votes in every state should be counted equally.
I think the theory behind the 'every vote counts' is a good one but in practice I don't think it would be wise. It would be nice to think that every citizen would go out and do their research and make an informed decision but the reality is that the vast majority won't. But just because they make shallow decisions doesn't mean they shouldn't count. I think it would be a good idea to have presidents elected by popular vote because it is the most fair.
13449
To Mr. Yang
I concur with the bill being passed. It really doesn't make any sense that some states are worth more than others. Seriously, individual states area the reason people don't vote, because it literally does not matter if you vote or not. And tallying up all the votes like that just makes people lazy because then all they have to do is get either all the small states or get all the big states, and if they do get all the big states, then that's just like 2 or 3 states hyperbolically speaking. If anything, at least make all the states worth one vote or something, and in the event of a tie, then tally it up with the actual votes or something.
-Ashley Diaz
13992
Well this article seems to make sense about the popular vote. Each candidate should go to all of the fifty states and talk to the people to try to confidence them to elect them. Another thing is that they should not give easily; they should try to visit the red and blue states and try to change the color of those states. But no what do they do is just give up easily and they don't even make an effort at all. I think that every vote should count equally and the candidates to compete for all the fifty states.
My opinion is that we should have the popular vote why? because we should all feel that our vote counted towards the person we want to believe is president and we have agreed with their ideas.When votes count equally then everyone gets more excited remembering that there vote can make a change . Even the presidents could start deciding to visit all 50 states instead of all the ones they know will vote for him.When they have the map with the blue and red it brings the peoples hopes down and end up not voting.
13755
This law that is gonna make the presidential election a direct vote is a bad idea. THEORETICALLY the candidates have to pay attention to every voter BUT a lot of voters are undecided about issues because they don't look into them. I say the government should restore the power of the electoral college to make the choice for the people, not just allow them to do what the people want them to do.
-13568
i think that every single state should count. This nation is all about equality and all that jazz. Why should other states have more pull on the canidates? Werent we all created equal. I think its very unfair to the rest of the country who are not being paid attention by the canidates. The articles statement is very true, but i do have to agree that most americans are not informed voters. they dont even try to get envolved in politics. Everyone should have the opportunityto be involved and they should know that their vote matters.
Mr. Yang,
Well I didnt even know how the electoral college worked until you explained it to us with that very colorful map. But now that I know how the electoral college works I dislike it very much, because all the people who vote don't truly have a say in who becomes their next president. Also those who dont vote are in the right when they say that their vote doesn't matter because in reality it doesn't. The president is selected to govern over us citizens, but if us citizens don't truly get to select our president than are we truly a Democratic Republic?
In reading the article, I think that the presidential elections should be based on popular vote, this would only be fair to the public. This way all the votes would count equally and there would be real competition amongst the fifty states. Every state would feel important or at least involved and not left out. It would also be good because the candidates would campaign in all of the fifty states.
Hello Mr. Yang,
Well, i think i am a bit undecided in my opinion of this article and the issue. It makes sense that we would want to apply the idea of popular vote to elections because once a state has been declared red or blue, the candidates pretty much focus on other states, just hoping to swing them. However, this may be unfair to those who would like to see their candidates campaign in their state and know more about their policies.
But the other side of this issue is the fact that, well, some are not as educated as others. Sadly, shallow thoughts and impressions can easily replace facts and true understanding and knowledge about the candidates. So when an educated person is voting based on actual knowledge and research, their vote is canceled out by the voter who saw one commercial, (or maybe a video game!) with a certain cadidate's face plastered on the screen that decided they "looked" like a president.
so im not really sure about this.
i do think that we are already given this right to vote and that shouldnt be taken away, but maybe if ads and such had more substance, voters would at least get more facts when seeing this candidate that "looks like a president".
-Danielle Holloman
13623
hey mr.yang,
well when i first read the article i thought, well duh we should base presidential elections off of a popular vote, instead of a "representative" making a decision for you which they can change if they like to fit them. it wouldnt seem fair that the candidates dont pay equal attention to all of the states with each of their citizens. However after reading what other people like danielle had to say im sort of torn on the decision as well.
sure we would like every citizen to be equal but the harsh reality is that we arent all equal and maybe our voting rights should reflect that because it doesnt seem fair that a person who went out and educated themselves about the issues and made an informed decision is gonna have an equal vote as someone who voted based on superficial ideas about the candidates.
so who knows what will happen but im pretty darn interested in finding out. lol
Hey Mr. Yang,
The idea of deciding the president based on the popular vote instead of the electoral college is a good idea because when a candidate has a lead in a specific state then they ignore that state. By ignoring the states the candidates might make the residents of those states feel unimportant because they are paying more attention to those swing states and it could possibly discourage many people to not go out and vote.
Erick Soto
13818
I don't think that every single vote should count. I mean it would be truly a peoples vote but I wouldn't trust the people. Most of Americans could not even take a simple citizen test if they had to these days. Most couldn't even tell you the platform of either candidates running this year. Americans are pretty lazy and i dont think that it would make a big difference in their mind state. But bottom line is I dont think it would be a good idea.
oops for got my id number
13594
Dear Mr. Yang,
In my opinion, electing the president by a national popular vote is a much more efficient system than by the electoral vote. If we based it on the popular vote every vote would be equal, and politicians would be forced to campaign in every state. Not counting small states as much as other states is the reason why our voter turn outs are so low. I think its time to do what more than 70 percent of the public has long supported and elect the president by a national popular vote.
-13080
Hey, Mr.Yang,
Well I believe that the article is pretty accurate. If the amendment is pass then California, Texas, New York,and all the large population states will have more power over New Jersey, Maryland, Rhode Island and all the small population states. Voting rights will not be as equal as they are today were there is an electoral college eventhough, state populations sort of influences the elections. Because if populations decide, stupid people will pick their candidate based on his/her appearance rather than their ideals.
-Maria Villalobos
Period 4
Our current system regarding the worth of each states' votes must change. I agree with most of the students that having a national popular vote is more sensible, logical, and fairer- since every vote will count and will be equal.
-13504
abeth1Mr. Yang
I agree with some of the stuff from the article for example, I think that it is fair to a candidate to win the elections among the populartity. I think that even though many people vote for the candidate's apearance, or their phisical I think everybody has the right to vote and the votes should be count equally.
hey mr.yang
i have to agree with the article because it is clearly obvious that the elctoral college is not working the way it should. Everyone does not have an equal vote when it comes to selecting the president. an election based on popular vote would force the candidates to campaign not just in those "battleground states" but all over the country. by using this system everyone has an equal vote and it wuould be a true election where every vote counts
- michael hernandez
12956
Hey Mr. Yang,
i would have to agree with the majority of my classmates, i believe that the canidates should campaign all over the United States. I dont like the fact how each state is catorgorize in red and blue. I think the canidates should be elected on the popular vote even though there might be some misinformed people and they vote based on height or what color shirt they are wearing, i think the idea that every vote matters is a good idea.
eric rivas
-17922
hey mr yang
To have everyone's vote matter would be too much. Obviously if people won't take time to research on the candidates now, they won't later. If every vote were to count equally and candidates really had to go around to every state it would probably take too long to get around and would eventually have to focus more in certain areas any way. It would be too difficult and time consuming to actually try to get to every citizen and not to mention the costs would be way more higher to run a campaign.
this idea is probably a step towards a better system but it sounds a too bit much.
-13309
hey Mr Yang
To have everyone's vote matter would be too much. Obviously if people won't take time to research on the candidates now, they won't later. If every vote were to count equally and candidates really had to go around to every state it would probably take too long to get around and would eventually have to focus more in certain areas any way. It would be too difficult and time consuming to actually try to get to every citizen and not to mention the costs would be way more higher to run a campaign.
-13309
Hi Mr. Yang!
I think everyone's votes should count the same whether you live in California or Rhode Island. Although, I aslo think that the minority need to be represented. I'm not sure how to have the majority and the minority represented and I'm not sure if the having a popular vote would be all that great. I think that most voting systems seem to be missong something...I would really like to see a new idea.
-Andrea M.
12195
I agree with most of the students in selecting our presidents based on population because most of the time people know what they want and in most cases they they get it because if the population agree with something then they are going to like it and if they like it everybody will be happy.
i also think that vote based on population influences a lot because it will give their vote more importance and the voter turn out percentage will be lower because the voters will feel that their vote IS IMPORTANT.
-13773-
Mr. Yang!
Well, I think that we should keep the voting just as it is because we have too many stupid (uneducated) Americans and if all their votes are going to matter, then I don't think our country will go to far. All we'll have is a good looking political leader, like the mighty California governor!
But, I do believe that the candidates should visit more states so that their people are informed on what their policies are. Maybe their votes will be based on more than what they see on the surface.
~Amelia
13860
i think it would be a good idea to run the election based on the popular vote because poeple want to feel like their in control of how their country is being run. they learn everything about the election and then find out that their personal vote won't matter. it will get the public more involved along with the candidates because they will need to go to all states instead of just some
sup yangsta (sorry its late),
this article was very truthful in that candidates only focus in states that they are not lossing too badly in or that they really need to win. we dont see too many obama or mc cain commercials in california because we usually always go to the democrats. since we always go to the democrats they dont focus too much on us and republicans completely ignore us because we are a lost cause for them. i hope that the popular vote bill passes so that candidates will focus on each state equally and each of or votes counts the same.
O.G.
13980
Mr.Yang,
I believe that the Popular Vote bill is a great idea because it will give the voters a true role in electing the prsident. The only problem that i would see with this is that it may get re-interpreted and then become a bad idea that the american people wouldn't want. Its not fair that if the majority of the people in California vote towards one candidate that he gets all the electoral college votes for Cali. This is bad because it just makes all the votes for the other candidate worth less.
-15972
To vote a president by popular is idiotic. The system we have now obviously works and if it isn't broken how can we fix it? The implement of the popular vote would do no justice. It leads us to the same problem. Candidates will only visit the populous states. Forgetting about Oklahoma or any state with less than hundreds of thousands of people. We need to leave the system alone. and if for some reason in the future it is necessary to switch to an all popular vote, then that is ok. But for our time, if it isn't broken, don't try and fix it.
-Crystal
13511
This article shows the truth as to what most Americans really want. To turn the election for presidency in to one giant popularity contest. This plan has no way of protecting Americans from horrible candidates who just look good to the people but wont do any good for the people. The idea of electoral votes is a good one but it does need to be better refined in the way it works. By listening to the people and making the decision that well benefit the people
the article shows the truth regarding the popularity of the elections. the electoral process through which our nation's president is now turning into a contest, "American President." when there is a debate, people dont really watch it. most people rather have someone else tell them wat it was about,such as celebrity exposé shows and even the news. Popular votes is what is really going on behind the walls of most american homes. Eventually the elections are going to turn into nothing but a highschool prom queen election. as always the most popular is the winner, and the "underdogs" (small states) will not really have a say in the election. Wich is not fair because if one person one vote then thats how it should count, not on the electorals that each state has. in other words one state one vote.
the article shows the truth regarding the popularity of the elections. the electoral process through which our nation's president is choosen it is now turning into a contest, "American Idol." when there is a debate, people dont really watch it. most people rather have someone else tell them wat it was about,such as celebrity exposé shows and even the news. Popular votes is what is really going on behind the walls of most american homes. Eventually the elections are going to turn into nothing but a highschool prom queen election. as always the most popular is the winner, and the "underdogs" (small states) will not really have a say in the election. Wich is not fair because if one person one vote then thats how it should count, not on the electorals that each state has. in other words one state one vote.
Hey Mr. Yang,
I wholeheartedly reject the idea of overthrowing the electoral college system. By forcing candidates to campaign in swing states, smaller states are heard-- but only for the sake of their vote. Once elected, Presidents hardly tend to the whim of any state of group of states. Instead they focus, unfortunately, on their pledged political party. So rather than disbanding the electoral college, let's focus on the greater division of American politics-- aggressive party ties.
although we are told over and over that we should all vote and that not voting is a really stupid idea, this article makes everything even worse. this gives us all yet another excuse not to get off our butts and go vote. Its not like it really matters anyway. This is most likely what people will think after reading this article. It is all a rather depressing realization, shouldnt we all have an equal vote? just because the polls say that a ceratin state is blue or red obama or mccain disregard it completely and it is as if we no longer matter to this important decision that affects us all. the candidtates should visit all the states equally.
-13962
Yes it is true that there are many benefits in making the Presidential elections a popular vote it would mean the nominees going for 51% of the population instead of going for all the fling states they could get. This would also make our American republic alot more democratic then it has been in the past. Though I feel this is a good idea it would still make the big states a alot more stronger and compitition there more fierce. You see California is the most populated state there for 56 eletorial votes while Alaska has 3. E.V wise C.A is 18.6 times bigger then A.K, population wise
C.A is 290 times bigger! Its clear were democrative and repulican canidates will go to the costs only living the middle and outside of the country alone but hey no more minority presidents.
-Abraham Islas
13631
Post a Comment