So I'm doing this at Eug's behest, because as he put it, "its way cooler to host a blog" than to just write notes on Facebook. And since I like to consider my buddy Eug as the love child of Fonzie and Frank Sinatra, I decided to put the thoughts from my last note with the relevant comments into one semi-coherent post:
That's right, as the title suggests, I will not be voting in the election. *pause for gaspers and fainters* Ok, before I explain myself or you read any further keep two things in mind: 1) my views are held with complete disregard to political bias or who is running in this or any election; and 2) my reason for not voting IS NOT laziness.
With that out of the way my reason for not voting is plain and simple; my vote DOES NOT count. And don't give me that crap that every vote counts, because its complete bullshit. Every vote counts in the 10-12 states that are swing states. For states like NY, where a given candidate is virtually locked in, then you're vote is irrelevant. By virtually locked in, I mean this: in 2004 Bush lost NY to Kerry by a margin of 59% to 40%, or roughly 1.5 million votes. As far as I'm aware this was the CLOSEST a presidential candidate was to taking NY since Reagan in '84. Translation: there's a better chance that Pamela Anderson will show up at my house tomorrow and ask me to titty-fuck her than there is of a Republican winning NY.
And what happens to the two or three million odd votes that get cast Republican in NY? They mean absolutely nothing, since by winning the popular vote in NY, the candidate will take all 33 electoral college votes, rather than the 59% of them that he is actually due. This is what I meant by "hate the system that discourages voting." If I were hypothetically a McCain supporter: well he has no chance of winning, so fuck it. If I were an Obama supporter: he already has a 1.5 million vote cushion; and my vote doesn't reach outside the scope of my state, so fuck it.
I think it is borderline lunacy that the system of the Electoral College is still in effect, and I think a lot of people will agree with me when you consider the reasons the Founding Fathers had for implementing it in the first place:
1) The Found Fathers did not trust the common man to intelligibly cast his vote for a man from outside his own state. An Electoral College alleviated this since the common man could vote for representative voters in his state. Back then, this may have made since since it would be difficult for a man to learn about a foreign candidate. However, given todays dynamic spread of news via television and internet to think a voter can't learn about a candidate is absurd. The debates are televised; anyone who wants to learn, can learn. So if given the present state of things, the reason is still that the government doesn't trust me, the common man, to vote intelligibly, well then fuck you. I guess I'm not smart enough to vote. Am I really the only one who sees the irony in the government "encouraging" me to vote in a system that they don't trust my intelligence to vote in?
2)The second reason was to give smaller states some power and to keep candidates from spending all their time campaigning with the "big states", which back then were Virginia, New York, and Pennsylvania. The logic behind this is that where New York had such a large population, two candidates would divert all their efforts to New York and ignore the little states. Well given the aforementioned advances in technology this is again an obsolete concern. Chances are when McCain gives a speech in Iowa, if i can't watch it live I can see the recap for breakfast.
On the other hand, the Electoral College seems to have done the exact opposite of doing what it intended. Whereas it hoped to prevent candidates from ignoring small states; now they can just ignore states that they deem "out of reach." As I'm sure most of you heard, McCain recently said he was giving up on Michigan, and I'm sure whether they say it vocally or not both candidates have in mind specific states that will bear the brunt of their focus. Meanwhile, states that swing partisan year to year can be ignored.
For instance: during the peak of the '04 campaign neither side spent a cent on TV or other advertising in Cali, NY, or Ill, all firmly Kerry states. Nor was a dollar spent in Georgia, Kansas, or Virginia: all firmly Bush states. The Bush campaign spent a whopping 127$ on his home state of Texas. Thats a total of 175, or about 33% of the electoral college votes.
On the other hand: 9.4 million and 37 visits went to Iowa. 47.3 million and 46 visits to Ohio. And 64.3 million and 61 visits to Florida. That's 54 votes, or roughly 10%. In the peak of the campaign 23 states received 0 TV ads, while 3 states drew over 52% of media attention.
And I know some of you are thinking: "ok well, what if everyone thought like you, what if EVERYONE just didn't vote?" Well If you really want me to entertain that ludicrous question, then I'd have to say that would be an incredible and ideal outcome. What better way to show how fucked up the system is than for the entire state of NY to just dissent from the election?
So in the future, instead of seeing these maniacal campaigns dedicated to increasing voter turnout, why doesn't someone start a maniacal campaign to get Congress to amend the voting process. Because until then, I see no real reason to vote; the full "weight" of my vote is decided long before I get my hands on a ballot.
