I’ve been thinking a lot today about the time-honored “one person, one vote.” While that may literally be true, not all votes are equal. That, in turn, throws into question the associated truism that every vote counts.
On the local level, I have seen one vote make a difference on more than one occasion, so part of me clings stubbornly to the truism.
The other part of me is looking at the size and scope of the national election as well as my own individual context within that electoral landscape.
I am a registered Republican living in New York state. If I voted with my party in the presidential election, my vote wouldn’t mean squat. John McCain will get trounced in the Empire State so badly that he might as well have left his name off the ballot. So, as a Republican voter voting Republican, my vote would make zero difference.
Conversely, as a Republican voting Democrat, I could add to the landslide, but my single vote would be a mere pebble at the bottom of the pile. Would my vote really matter?
If I stay home, will anyone miss me?
I’ve had students ask me this same question over the past few days. My answer is always the same: Vote based on your principles, not on the numbers. Maybe it’s a good answer—maybe—but it really doesn’t address the source of their frustration and bewilderment. I didn’t bother getting into the pitfalls of the antiquated Electoral College system that makes some votes essentially meaningless.
A million votes matter, but a single vote….
I think about Stalin (which is rather ironic) and his famous quote about tragedies and statistics, but when I try to paraphrase it with an election spin, I just can’t complete the thought: a million votes can be an election, but one’s man vote is…what?
Am I part of something larger? Or am I extraneous in something that big?
Related posts (automated):
- Election Reflection I: “Early” voting
- Election Reflection II: Who Gave that Speech?
- Election Reflection V: Blue States and…Gray States?
- Election Reflection IV: The Waiting is the Hardest Part
- Exclusive: FEC commissioner helped RNC conceal role in 2004 vote suppression
Print This Post
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people were merely spectators to the presidential election. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill is currently endorsed by 1,181 state legislators — 439 sponsors (in 47 states) and an additional 742 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
In the context of the presidential race, I can see your point. But that’s not the only race on the ballot. State rep, state assembly, etc. I want my state Assembly rep outta office so badly I can taste it … so I voted.
I suspect we voted similarly on that state rep, Denny….
Chris,
Although under the present rules, your vote wouldn’t make a difference if you voted Republican being in a heavily Dem state, but voting is your civic duty. One should never complain about the results of an election or what happens, if they did not vote.
Jeff
And State Board of Education here… although that congenital idiot Don McLeroy wasn’t on the chopping block this time. More’s the pity.
The most important politics is always close to home. I live in a city of 26,000 (including 9,000 college students). How many of them are eligible to vote i do not know, but i do know that for city commission, etc. my vote counts for a lot, and what these people do has a much stronger effect on my daily life than most of the things a President does.
But at the philosophical level, it counts because it is your vote.
that million votes is made up of individuals — drops in the bucket.
the bucket would never fill if the drops didn’t bother to show up.