With ideal candidates out of the picture, apathy strikes voters
Throughout my entire life, I have been told that my vote matters.
The first instance came in middle school when my civics teacher discussed how a Massachusetts gubernatorial election came down to a single vote in 1893.
Later, my high school government teacher rallied senior students and inspired them to make their voices heard during the 2012 presidential election.
Democracy is the backbone of this nation, allowing citizens of every religion, ethnicity and sexual orientation to have a say in who is elected and what laws are passed.
But what happens when someone is faced with choosing between two candidates who do not represent their ideals?
That is the very situation I face as I look at the current picture of the presidential race. On one side of the aisle stands an inexperienced publicity stunt with no filter, while the other side possesses a dubious official with a checkered political history.
When primaries and caucuses began in February, very few people could have predicted the chaos that would soon unfold. With few noteworthy politicians on the Republican side, name recognition quickly propelled Donald Trump to the frontrunner position, while the Democratic side featured very little competition as Hillary Clinton barreled her way to the nomination.
Neither of these individuals would be my first choice for president, which leaves me in a tough position. What do I do when my vote is essentially meaningless?
Our current political structure has produced two powerful parties that offer no alternative choice when both candidates are less than ideal.
In this situation, people have always been told to vote for the lesser of two evils. But isn’t that like choosing between a tooth extraction or slamming your hand in the car door?
And that situation doesn’t even factor in the Electoral College.
When it’s all said and done, Americans are voting for someone else to cast a vote for the president. But the surprising with free will, and since the organization was founded there are 156 instances of members voting against their state results.
That’s not even taking into consideration the number of electoral votes each state provides. Idaho only casts four electoral votes, while my home state of Alaska provides three.
When a state contributes to less than 1 percent of the Electoral College, voters start to realize that their votes don’t mean much in the grand scheme of it all, especially when feeling apathetic toward both candidates.
So if people give young voters a hard time about not exercising the right to vote in November, rest assured that it really won’t matter in the long run.
Josh Grissom
can be reached at
or on Twitter @GoshJrissom
otto
A survey of Alaska voters showed 70% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states. In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled. Most Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win. By changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes, the National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support among voters) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions. The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538. All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority. The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect. National Popular Vote