File spoon-archives/marxism-intro.archive/marxism-intro_2004/marxism-intro.0410, message 108


From: Desoto-AT-pseud.pseud
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 23:01:44 -0600
Subject: RE: M-INTRO: Buying your vote?


You live in a democratic REPUBLIC.  Ask Dr. Franklin...(Ben, that is)

Electoral votes, in the past, made it so that smaller states had a voice and so
that their individual citizen's votes didn't get lost in the "majority." 
Today, it is mainly the rural areas that are given a voice, going up against
large metropolitan areas, by the electoral votes.  

Just look at many of the swing states.  Many of them aren't large and some don't
even have a halfway large city in them, such as New Mexico.

This is the divide we see today.  It is not North vs. South or East vs. West,
but rural vs. metropolitan with suburbia finding pockets on both sides and in
the middle.  

Quoting buckfush-AT-pseud.pseud:

> I am not sure where to start in responding to Henry.  Henry says that
> all that it takes is my 1 more vote to make my candidate take the state.
>  I live in Utah.  Kerry doesn't need my 1vote, he needs my 1 vote and
> another 500,000-700,000 votes.  My whole point was to show that it makes
> a huge difference what state you live in.  In a democracy, it shouldn't
> matter where you live.  A Kerry vote in Utah should count the same as a
> Kerry vote in any other state.  Speaking of majority - rarely does the
> president get a majority of the votes.  You say that he got a majority
> of the votes in the states with more electoral votes.  A majority of the
> votes means more than 50%.  Bush got nowhere near 50% of the popular
> vote nor did he get more than 50% of the votes in most of the states
> that he won.  A true democracy means that every vote counts, and counts
> equally.  Add up the amount of votes each candidate receives and that is
> the next president.  Sometimes we try so hard to make simple things
> difficult that we lose sight of the overall aim, which should be to
> elect the president with the most votes.  I have an idea and I'd like to
> know what others think about it.  Since all of the electoral votes of a
> state go to one candidate, regardless of how many votes that candidate
> won the state by, wouldn't it be interesting to only count a state's
> electoral votes if 75% of that state voted?  Since states decide
> outcomes, I think it only fitting that a state that doesn't participate
> fully shouldn't be counted at all.  Isn't that how the system currently
> works anyway - all or nothing?  No in-between.  Then states will know
> how an individual voter in the minority feels, to not have their voice
> heard equally.  What do you think?
> 
> >>> Henry-AT-pseud.pseud 10/16/2004 9:13:49 PM >>>
> I disagree with pretty much with all that has been
> said about the electoral votes and trading your vote.
> If anything I think that the electoral votes would
> make you want to go out and vote more then any other
> system. You know that all it takes is one more vote
> for your party to gain all the votes from that state.
> The fact that you live in a state that isn't part of
> the 15 or so swing states doesn't make your voice not
> heard, it simply means you are in the minority where
> you live. One of the things that makes America so
> great is that the majority rules. Granted the last
> election Bush did not win the overall majority vote,
> but obviously he won the majority of voters in the
> states with more electoral votes to end up winning the
> election.
> --- buckfush-AT-pseud.pseud wrote:
> 
> > Since a candidate receiving 5% of the popular vote
> > becomes eligible for
> > government funding in the following election,
> > wouldn't it make sense for
> > all of those people who are in the minority in their
> > state to trade (or
> > sell) their votes to those who live in swing-states?
> >  (It is legal to
> > sell pollution permits...why not votes, which are
> > just another form of
> > pollution permits).  My Kerry vote in Utah doesn't
> > make a hill-of-beans
> > difference to the outcome.  But an extra Kerry vote
> > in Florida just
> > might.  If I make a deal with someone in Florida
> > that says they will
> > vote for Kerry if I will vote for Nader, then it has
> > two positive
> > outcomes.  That makes it more possible for Kerry to
> > win (and Bush to
> > lose) and it secures a better chance of government
> > funding of Nader in
> > the 2008 race.  A win-win situation...unless you are
> > a republican.  They
> > will probably cry "unfair" and Scalia will
> > 'interpret' the constitution
> > again.  
> > Unfortunately, it isn't true that Nader caused the
> > democrats to lose in
> > 2000.  Only looking at the total percentage of the
> > popular vote is
> > terribly misleading, due to the current make-up of
> > the electoral
> > college.  It doesn't matter if a candidate loses the
> > state by one vote
> > or by 100,000 votes...the result is the same.  So
> > what if Nader got a
> > good chunk of the 2000 votes...the relevant question
> > is, which states
> > did he get those votes in?  Votes in non-swing
> > states are fine, so if
> > all of his votes came from those states (Utah, for
> > example), then his
> > presence in the 2000 race did absolutely nothing to
> > effect the outcome. 
> > However, if he was receiving a lot of votes in the
> > swing-states, then
> > the people living in those states should have known
> > better than that and
> > voted democrat.  It should have been obvious that a
> > non-republican or
> > non-democrat candidate had no chance to win.  The
> > slogan "you make your
> > voice heard by voting" is true, but not necessarily
> > for the reasons we
> > might think.  Voting Nader in Florida definitely
> > made your voice
> > heard...it said loud and clear that you wanted Bush
> > to win.  They chose
> > to vote Nader, knowing that they live in a swing
> > state.  Maybe they have
> > learned something after the 2000 debacle.  
> > I see nothing wrong with selling votes.  Wouldn't
> > Marx say a vote is a
> > commodity - something produced for sale or exchange?
> >  The value of my
> > vote is exchanged for the use-value of a certain
> > candidate in the White
> > House.  By selling a vote from a non-swing state to
> > a swing-state, it is
> > only making my vote heard.  It will never be so
> > heard using the present
> > system.  If we live in the greatest democracy, why
> > does my vote only
> > matter if I live in a certain geographical region? 
> > Are we not one
> > union?  The fact is, we are not made up of 50 equal
> > states, but rather
> > there are only 12-15 states that have any say in a
> > presidential outcome.
> >  I will gladly vote for someone other than Kerry if
> > in so doing it
> > doesn't secure Bush to another 4 years.  Depending
> > on where you live, a
> > vote for anyone other than Kerry is tantamount to a
> > vote for Bush.  You
> > don't need a certain total amount of votes to win an
> > election,  you only
> > need 1 more than your opponent.  If I take that 1
> > vote from Kerry and
> > give it to anyone else, then Bush has a 1-vote lead.
> >  I am not voting
> > for either Kerry or Bush but I am open to any
> > un-decided swing-state
> > voter to vote for Kerry and in return I will vote
> > for whoever they want
> > me to vote for.  The buying and selling of
> > commodities in a beneficial
> > manner to all of society...Marx would be smiling in
> > his grave.
> > 
> > >>> REDHEAD-AT-pseud.pseud 10/15/2004 6:50:23 PM >>>
> > Don't forget that Nader received a healthy chunk of
> > funding from the Republican party.  He was
> > theoretically blamed for the loss of the last
> > election
> > by the Democrats.  It seems that the majority of
> > conservatives tend to vote Republican.  On the other
> > hand, the liberals don't all tend to vote Democrat. 
> > Many liberals will vote 3rd party because they want
> > to
> > "fight the norm", when in turn it just dilutes their
> > voting power.  That was my mistake during the 2000
> > election when I wasted my vote on Nader.  I would
> > like
> > nothing more than to elect a 3rd party to office.  I
> > just don't know if America/Rest of the World, can
> > endure 4 more years of the current regime while we
> > wait for it.  Just remember that their is a good
> > reason why Nader got his funding.     REDHEAD 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- nhuggs-AT-pseud.pseud wrote:
> > 
> > > Yes, there is actually a website that explains it.
> > 
> > > Here it is:
> > > 
> > > http://www.votepair.org/ 
> > > 
> > > I don't really agree with it, but oh well.  The
> > > issue of getting a third
> > > party candidate money is an interesting one.  If a
> > > candidate receives 5% of
> > > the popular vote the party then qualifies for
> > > government funding in the
> > > following election.  It seems like most people in
> > > this election are voting
> > > for one candidate or the other only because they
> > > cannot stand the other.  I
> > > think we as Americans should have more than two
> > > choices and should therefore
> > > explore the platforms of the other parties.  We
> > all
> > > know who will win the
> > > vote from Utah, but don't forget the third party
> > > candidates.  Here are a
> > > couple of links for those who want info but don't
> > > know where to find it:
> > > 
> > > http://www.elections.utah.gov/2004candidates.htm 
> > > 
> > > http://www.voteutah.org/ 
> > > 
> > > Voteutah.org is a great site that gives
> > non-partisan
> > > info on where the
> > > candidates stand on the issues in the local races.
> > 
> > > To me the local offices
> > > are much more important and affect our lives much
> > > more than the presidential
> > > race.  Get informed and get out and vote!!!
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From:
> > owner-marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU 
> > >
> >
> [mailto:owner-marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU] 
> > 
> > > On Behalf Of
> > > JimmieJ-AT-pseud.pseud 
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 9:24 PM
> > > To: marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU 
> > > Subject: M-INTRO: Buying your vote?
> > > 
> > > Today I heard a report on trading Nader votes for
> > > Kerry votes.  I found it 
> > > disturbing and intriguing at the same time. 
> > Living
> > > in Utah, we have no sway
> > > 
> > > in the Electoral College, pretty much not giving
> > us
> > > any choice in our 
> > > president but the report was saying there are
> > > websites that will put 
> > > individuals together to vote for their candidates.
> > 
> > > So if a Nader voter in 
> > > the east will exchange his vote for a Kerry vote
> > > than Nader is given more 
> > > government funds for his next campaign.  It is
> > > ironic though, that the 
> > > person on the east could possible say he'll vote
> > for
> > > Kerry but end up voting
> > > 
> > > for Nader to give him more money.  I wonder what
> > > Marx would say about this 
> > 
> === message truncated ==> 
> 
> 		
> _______________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
> http://vote.yahoo.com 
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 






     --- from list marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005