How Did You Vote? Completed votes only!

I took advantage of early voting and cast my ballot last night. I'm grateful for the opportunity to exercise my God given, constitutionally protected right to vote. I can only hope and pray now at this time that God protects America.



For this poll, only after you have voted for real in the election, cast your ballot on CougarCorner and we'll see how in tune CougarCorner is with the rest of Utah and the United States.

snoscythe wrote:
Scott Kevin Walker

Not a bad write in.

So only 2/9 votes so far for Trump? You would think in most years it would be about 8/9 on a site like this voting for the Republican nominee. What a weird election.

I look forward to seeing more votes added to this as people vote today.

McMullin

Johnson was the best candidate on my ballot.



I don't think I would have voted for McMullin given the chance. I remember what happened the last time a former CIA guy was elected. His foreign policy is pretty terrible from what I've read, which I admit wasn't a lot given he wasn't on my ballot.

I love that out of 19 people, no one has voted for HRC

Gary Johnson. I want the Libertarian party to get more of that federal election commission funding for the next election.

Cougarfan87 wrote:
Gary Johnson. I want the Libertarian party to get more of that federal election commission funding for the next election.

If I lived in a state where my vote likely didn't matter as much, I'd have done the same thing. Johnson isn't perfect, but he's probably not as bad as the other two.



DJT for me.

Congrats to everyone who did not vote for her corruption.

BroncoBot wrote:

Gary Johnson. I want the Libertarian party to get more of that federal election commission funding for the next election.

If I lived in a state where my vote likely didn't matter as much, I'd have done the same thing. Johnson isn't perfect, but he's probably not as bad as the other two.



DJT for me.

My wife and I both discussed that. Had we been in a swing state, we would have voted for Trump. Many of the things Sno mentioned in another post would have pushed us in that direction--the outright corruption, Obamacare increase in premiums, as well as Supreme Court nominees. I just could not stand by with a women who thinks you should be able to abort anytime. Because we were in Alabama, which was never a possibility for Clinton, we voted for Johnson. So, I guess that is only a half-hearted protest vote. ;) And it really was about providing funding for future elections so there are more choices in the future, since we had the luxury of doing so without jeopardizing a Clinton loss in our state.

And this is why we need to change the all or nothing votes. I don't even like congressional districts really. If state XYZ has 10 votes and Party A got 60% of the votes and Party B got 30% and Party C got 10% then they should get, 6, 3, and 1 votes. Then your vote really matters and carries over on a national scale.

byufan4ever wrote:
And this is why we need to change the all or nothing votes. I don't even like congressional districts really. If state XYZ has 10 votes and Party A got 60% of the votes and Party B got 30% and Party C got 10% then they should get, 6, 3, and 1 votes. Then your vote really matters and carries over on a national scale.

If you do that, then prepare for the country to be ruled by New York, LA, San Francisco, Chicago, and Miami. No, I like the electoral college just fine.

Cougarfan87 wrote:

And this is why we need to change the all or nothing votes. I don't even like congressional districts really. If state XYZ has 10 votes and Party A got 60% of the votes and Party B got 30% and Party C got 10% then they should get, 6, 3, and 1 votes. Then your vote really matters and carries over on a national scale.

If you do that, then prepare for the country to be ruled by New York, LA, San Francisco, Chicago, and Miami. No, I like the electoral college just fine.

yup. calls for secession would go from a whisper to an angry mob.

Cougarfan87 wrote:

And this is why we need to change the all or nothing votes. I don't even like congressional districts really. If state XYZ has 10 votes and Party A got 60% of the votes and Party B got 30% and Party C got 10% then they should get, 6, 3, and 1 votes. Then your vote really matters and carries over on a national scale.

If you do that, then prepare for the country to be ruled by New York, LA, San Francisco, Chicago, and Miami. No, I like the electoral college just fine.

As it is New York City carries NY, Chicago carries IL, etc. Except instead of those states now being 100% to one party, you will get the rural votes that are probably more conservative and they will now count and matter.

BroncoBot wrote:

byufan4ever wrote:
And this is why we need to change the all or nothing votes. I don't even like congressional districts really. If state XYZ has 10 votes and Party A got 60% of the votes and Party B got 30% and Party C got 10% then they should get, 6, 3, and 1 votes. Then your vote really matters and carries over on a national scale.

If you do that, then prepare for the country to be ruled by New York, LA, San Francisco, Chicago, and Miami. No, I like the electoral college just fine.

yup. calls for secession would go from a whisper to an angry mob.

I don't see the connection from allowing a state's electoral vote to be divided up to calling for a secession. I think it's incredibly stupid to have a 55 all or nothing state.

byufan4ever wrote:

byufan4ever wrote:
And this is why we need to change the all or nothing votes. I don't even like congressional districts really. If state XYZ has 10 votes and Party A got 60% of the votes and Party B got 30% and Party C got 10% then they should get, 6, 3, and 1 votes. Then your vote really matters and carries over on a national scale.

If you do that, then prepare for the country to be ruled by New York, LA, San Francisco, Chicago, and Miami. No, I like the electoral college just fine.

As it is New York City carries NY, Chicago carries IL, etc. Except instead of those states now being 100% to one party, you will get the rural votes that are probably more conservative and they will now count and matter.

Yes, but Austin, Houston, and Dallas did not carry Texas. But if you combine the electoral votes that would have happened in a split system, those electoral votes would have been combined with other high population centers, and thus, cities would always rule the country. That is the very kind of thing the Framers meant to avoid with an electoral college. They wanted the less populated states to have a say in national politics, and it has worked for over 200 years.

Cougarfan87 wrote:

Cougarfan87 wrote:

And this is why we need to change the all or nothing votes. I don't even like congressional districts really. If state XYZ has 10 votes and Party A got 60% of the votes and Party B got 30% and Party C got 10% then they should get, 6, 3, and 1 votes. Then your vote really matters and carries over on a national scale.

If you do that, then prepare for the country to be ruled by New York, LA, San Francisco, Chicago, and Miami. No, I like the electoral college just fine.

As it is New York City carries NY, Chicago carries IL, etc. Except instead of those states now being 100% to one party, you will get the rural votes that are probably more conservative and they will now count and matter.

Yes, but Austin, Houston, and Dallas did not carry Texas. But if you combine the electoral votes that would have happened in a split system, those electoral votes would have been combined with other high population centers, and thus, cities would always rule the country. That is the very kind of thing the Framers meant to avoid with an electoral college. They wanted the less populated states to have a say in national politics, and it has worked for over 200 years.

Still disagree. I mean, you stated above that you would have changed your vote depending on if you were in a swing state or not. I don't blame you (well maybe a little...), I blame the system for encouraging such silly thinking (my opinion).

I'd be ok w/ a similar distribution as Nebraska and Maine. Two electoral votes for the state race and then one for each Congressional district.

byufan4ever wrote:

byufan4ever wrote:

byufan4ever wrote:
And this is why we need to change the all or nothing votes. I don't even like congressional districts really. If state XYZ has 10 votes and Party A got 60% of the votes and Party B got 30% and Party C got 10% then they should get, 6, 3, and 1 votes. Then your vote really matters and carries over on a national scale.

If you do that, then prepare for the country to be ruled by New York, LA, San Francisco, Chicago, and Miami. No, I like the electoral college just fine.

As it is New York City carries NY, Chicago carries IL, etc. Except instead of those states now being 100% to one party, you will get the rural votes that are probably more conservative and they will now count and matter.

Yes, but Austin, Houston, and Dallas did not carry Texas. But if you combine the electoral votes that would have happened in a split system, those electoral votes would have been combined with other high population centers, and thus, cities would always rule the country. That is the very kind of thing the Framers meant to avoid with an electoral college. They wanted the less populated states to have a say in national politics, and it has worked for over 200 years.

Still disagree. I mean, you stated above that you would have changed your vote depending on if you were in a swing state or not. I don't blame you (well maybe a little...), I blame the system for encouraging such silly thinking (my opinion).

Not silly at all. It is called practical.



Winner take all is great for ensuring that the smattering of blue across the country does not rule the country. Hillary won the popular vote (so far...still counting), but not the popular vote in the most states. As such, the balance the founders sought between states and the people worked as it should to prevent the tyranny of the masses.