Would you agree that votes for a president only count in a few states?

It seems to me at least that unless your voting in one of the battleground swing states, there's no point in voting really. What I mean by that is, let's say you favor the republican candidate and you live in California or almost any of the states in the northeast. Those areas are deep blue and a republican vote is basically useless in those states. Likewise, there's almost no point of voting if you live in a deep red states like texas or most of the southern and western states and you favor the democratic candidate. Every election it's almost easy to tell which states will go red, which ones will go blue and which ones are swing. And also another question, why do some people vote for third party candidates when they know damn well those candidates will never win?

6 Answers

Relevance
  • Flower
    Lv 7
    3 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    No state is 100% red or blue but California and New York have the most political influence and the most money. Well, if people in PA, MI, WI, Ohio did not vote, Hillary would have won.

    • Jeff D
      Lv 7
      3 years agoReport

      Texas has way more political influence than New York (38 electoral votes compared to 29).

  • 3 years ago

    States become battleground states when enough people in a state think the way you do.

  • Anonymous
    3 years ago

    No, why would I agree with any thing that false?

    How the Electoral College Elects the President:

    When you vote for a presidential candidate you are really voting to instruct the electors from your state to cast their votes for the same candidate. For example, if you vote for the Republican candidate, you are really voting for an elector who will be "pledged" to vote for the Republican candidate. The candidate who wins the popular vote in a state wins all the pledged votes of the state's electors.

    The Electoral College system was established in Article II of the Constitution and amended by the 12th Amendment in 1804.

    Each state gets a number of electors equal to its number of members in the U.S. House of Representatives plus one for each of its two U.S. Senators.

    The District of Columbia gets three electors. While state laws determine how electors are chosen, they are generally selected by the political party committees within the states.

    Each elector gets one vote. Thus, a state with eight electors would cast eight votes. There are currently 538 electors and the votes of a majority of them—270 votes—are required to be elected.

    Since Electoral College representation is based on congressional representation, states with larger populations get more Electoral College votes.

    Should none of the candidates win 270 electoral votes, the 12th Amendment kicks in and the election is decided by the House of Representatives. The combined representatives of each state get one vote and a simple majority of states is required to win. This has only happened twice. Presidents Thomas Jefferson in 1801 and John Quincy Adams in 1825 were elected by the House of Representatives.

    While the state electors are "pledged" to vote for the candidate of the party that chose them, nothing in the Constitution requires them to do so. In rare instances, an elector will defect and not vote for his or her party's candidate. Such "faithless" votes rarely change the outcome of the election and laws of some states prohibit electors from casting them.

    We vote on Tuesday, and before the sun sets in California at least one of the TV networks will have declared a winner. By midnight, one of the candidates will have probably claimed victory and some will have conceded defeat. But not until the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, when the electors of the Electoral College meet in their state capitals and cast their votes will we really have a new president and vice president elect.

    Why the delay between the general election and the Electoral College meetings? Back in the 1800s, it simply took that long to count the popular votes and for all the electors to travel to the state capitals. Today, the time is more likely to be used for settling any protests due to election code violations and for vote recounts.

  • Anonymous
    3 years ago

    Yes I agree.

    Since 2000, it was made clear that nobody can win without winning Ohio and Florida.

    States could go blue to red or red to blue.

    There are many states that just does not matter.

    They are red and blue states.

    You could tell what these states are, they are called minutes after their polls closed. Before they count votes. Nobody comes to these states after the primary.

    Hilary mistake was she did not go to a few states she assume would vote for her, Trump did.

    Both Trump and Hilary did not go to many, assuming they will be red or blue. It's very sad knowing your vote does not count.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    3 years ago

    you just copy, and paste this same question so i will copy, and paste my same answer:

    i disagree.

    in fact the lest election proves that wrong.

    PA, MI, and WI were never considered battleground states. if the Trump voters there felt voting didn't matter, and stayed home Crooked Hillary would be president, and destroying what was left after 8 years of obama.

  • 3 years ago

    Which is why the Electoral college is outdated and at a minimum should be done by district, not by entire state.

    • Lv 7
      3 years agoReport

      Pascal the Gambler, so another stupid brain dead liberal idiot believe they are more intelligent than our founding fathers. OMG, how can these stupid brain dead liberal idiots be so damned stupid?

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.