Why does voting for president matter?

Ok, perhaps I'm wrong on this, but from what I've gathered the electorial college elects the president. They are supposed to vote for who the state's population picks, but they don't have to and can go with whoever they want.
Is that correct? If so, why is trump even trying? Hillary's been so corrupt and a politician for so long that all her buddys will just elect her when the time comes, Trump doesn't have the behind closed doors secret friends to get him in. Seems like a big waste of time to me, assuming I'm right of course.....

 

Just have to follow the money.

I believe it is a big waste.

 

If we really wanted our vote to count and have the population pick the winner we would count the popular vote period. That of course gives to much power to the people and the politicians cant have that.

 

You are very ill informed on this subject. The Framers spent a huge amount of time designing this system, and it's worked remarkably well. They proposed and rejected all manner of schemes to elect a chief executive. They chose the Electoral College because:

a. It avoided direct election by the populace and preserved the role of the several States in electing the chief executive. The name of the country is the United STATES of America, not the People's Republic of America. Our country is a federation of sovereign states. Directly electing the President would eliminate their role. If you want to see the disaster that direct democracy brings, research how California's dysfunction came about (hint: it's the voter initiatives). America was founded on the principle of Republicanism. It worked extremely well when we committed to it. America's governance issues come from the tyranny of the Federal Government, not the States.

b. They wished to avoid tyranny of the majority by states with large populations, thus preserving States' rights. Each state is guaranteed 3 electoral votes, giving smaller states relatively greater influence.

c. They wished to avoid election by Congress while still maintaining proportional representation. That is why we have Electors that aren't sitting members of Congress.

d. It simply isn't true that they can vote for whomever they wish. Some are bound to follow the popular vote, some are unbound. If it takes multiple ballots to elect the President I believe all the electors become unbound as well. It's complex and I don't understand all the intricacies myself, but I know it's not as simple as Electors being able to vote for whomever they wish.

The Framers gave us the foundation for the most successful state in the history of man, they knew what the fuck they were doing. The Constitution has worked extremely well for 229 years. Let's not try to throw it out just because we feel aggrieved.

 

That's what they said about voter initiatives. Direct democracy is a complete disaster, always has been and always will be. Look at the Athenians.

 

Jesus fuck would you stop doing this shit to me today?

 

Well also at the end of the day the people's votes don't directly count towards the electoral college either right? The voters' votes are basically just a "suggestion" to the delegates of that state on who to vote for. If they choose they can go against what the majority of the state votes for anyway technically.

 

I don't believe there has ever been an election where they didn't go with that "suggestion".

 

157 times since the inception of the electoral college actually

http://www.fairvote.org/faithless_electors

 

So if they want all states to vote then why isn't it easiest to have each state vote then each state enters its "popular vote" as one.

A total of 50 points. Whoever gets the most points wins.

The way it sits now, some states get way more influence than others.

Why can't all states each get a vote?

 

I believe they're allocated to a party not specifically to a candidate. Most states are winner take all and will apportion all electors to the majority popular vote winner.

 

The Carlin quote that most applies is "think how stupid the average person is. Half the people are stupider than that." Do you really want "the people" to decide who governs us? That's what's given us the choice between a criminal and a lunatic. Unfortunately there's no reasonable alternative. We're just SOL. The end.

 

Because that's not at all fair to the states that are much larger and would result in a huge disconnect between the will of the voters and the election of the President. California only gets 55 votes to Wyoming's 3 despite California having a population 70x larger. Smaller states therefore have relatively more influence than large ones, even if large states have larger absolute power.

The Founders also believed in the Electoral College as a means of stopping a demagogue from inciting the people and seizing power. See: Trump, Donald. These people were one of the smartest groups ever assembled. At least one of them foresaw just about every problem we've faced since 1776. Every argument we have today about government is one these guys already made.

 

The arrogance of this statement is stunning. Is history only the last 200 years for you? How do you quantify success?

The rest of your post is spot on.

 

With only one case ever causing the ticket to need to go to the senate (1836 -- Vice President). Given the SCOTUS case authorizing state's to pass laws against voting against pledge (29 have done so), I don't see the electoral college ever not following the state allocations in he case of a tipping point event.

 

If you look into the Constitution there are reasons for this as there is for the electoral college. One problem with your popular vote idea is that politicians would campaign in NYC, LA, Atlanta, Dallas/Ft Worth and Miama (no need for Chicago the dead have that). Screw everyone else even more than now. The electoral college is part of the compromise between the large states and small as we are a Republic by design.

The Senate was similarly controlled at the state level until the Amendment on purpose. This is not a bad thing as it is another check and balance that we need now more than ever. Or we could just have King Obama I

 

It's unfortunate that Senators are no longer elected by state legislatures. This caused a huge shift of power from the states to the Federal government and eliminated an important check on national power.

 

Damn youse all over again!

 

So instead we like a system that gives those larger States a larger % of voting power to elect our President? How's that any more or less fair than Robby's suggestion?

People have been saying it for a long time, why should the State of Ca, NY, NJ and numerous other shitholes that are Democrat failures, I mean strongholds have more voting power over the lesser populated but successfully run States??? Are their urban interests more important than those in more rural areas?

I'm not saying the E.C. is 100% wrong but I'm not convinced it's working, in these modern days, the way they (Founders) might have thought back then either.

 

No system is perfect but it does have an effect. The change of the Senate messed it up a fair amount. But candidates still spend a good amount of time in varying places. One thing that is interesting is that at the presidential level the monolithic voting of democrats in NYC might even have lessened the areas influence.