It is not that her vote does not count. It is because so many people live in Cook County and the other large cities that it makes her feel like her vote doesn't count.

Here are a couple of maps that illustrate it. (I did not use the 2008 election map since many people across the state voted for Obama as they feel he was the "local Illinois guy".

For some reason this website decided to use blue for Bush and red for Kerry instead of the tradition red for Republican and blue for Democrat. 2004 

When looking at it on a county by county basis you can see the vast majority of the state voted for Bush. The breakdown in each county was probably about 55-60% for Bush and the balance to Kerry. the same holds true for the other downstate counties that went to Kerry. When you get into Chicago (Cook County) it was 70% for Kerry. So one county more or less decided how the whole state was going to go. the overall state vote was 55% Kerry and 44% Bush. (Rounding and Libertarian votes make up the last 1%)



The same thing happened 4 years earlier in 2000 . Gore won a few more counties but Chicago dictated how the state as a whole was going to go.



I know it happens in other states as well. Typically the votes in a few metro counties in California direct what is going to happen for the whole state. Metro NYC is stronger than Upstate New York. South Florida to some degree politically controls all the rest of the state. And so on in other states as well.

If there was to be a change in the manner of voting instead of it going completely to a popular vote. I would like to see something like Nebraska and Maine have. Break down the electoral votes based on Congressional districts. That way one candidate doesn't win the entire state. And the candidates can not focus the whole campaign in just a handful of swings states.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

i live in IL & i know my vote means squat!!
chicago has the power to negate all downstate voters. ugh.

Originally Posted by: 4PackGirl 

Post of the Year!!!! And where is Obama from? Chicago.

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan 

As with everyone else, you're thinking short-term. So, Romney wins over Obama and you admit that Romney's not your choice so I'm guessing you're not thrilled with him. The Democrats will play ball with Romney about as much as the Republicans played ball with Obama, and the Democrats played ball with Bush. Little gets accomplished, our tax code remains a complete disaster with a tweak here or there, more small-scale military conflict, more mediocre economic recovery. People need to take a stand at some point or our candidates are just going to get worse and worse.

Originally Posted by: Porforis 

I should be Bob's VP.
After all, once he's assassinated, i become the PRESIDENT!
(I'd just have to make sure my shot would hit the mark!)[grin1]

Originally Posted by: Cheesey 

good. I get worn out by all the he said, she said, they said rhetoric.

I have never seen anyone change their position based on internet discussions.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

Can you explain why you feel your vote matters less than say, a citizen of Chicago? I'm genuinely curious, a lot of people seem to feel that if their vote doesn't go to the winning candidate it's worth less. I don't agree with that, but I've never heard someone explain why they feel that way.

Originally Posted by: Porforis 

I am all for sending a message to our elected officials. Just not by throwing away my presidential vote. And its not short term thinking, it is hopeful thinking. I am certain that Obama is wrong for the country. I am certain we cannot tax our way out of the deficit or debt. But the office of the president is to important to throw away or vote for somebody who doesn't stand a chance. If we let Obama stay in office, we are telling him he is doing ok. He isn't, and that alone is enough to not deserve a 2nd term.

Personally I don't think taxes should be raised or lowered at this point. Not until we as a country really go through our budget and cut spending to a bare minimum and determine where and what we are actually spending on. Many things can be moved to the private sector and off tax payer dime. TSA for example, 8 billion dollars, there is no reason private security cannot fill that role. 911 was not the fault of the people working security, it was just the policies. But they freaked and went overboard. Privatize them again, and not only do you move that 8 billion off the government budget, but you remove the future burden of those government worker retirements.

Herman Cain was on the right track when he said bills should be limited to 3 pages. While that may not be possible the concept is correct. We don't need 2000 page bills that not even one person knows everything in them. They need to be simple. Look at Obamacare. If it is a good idea to insure our young adults until they are 26, you right that as a bill, submit it, debate it, vote and implement. And move on to the next bill. The reason things take so long is because each bill has 200 different things on and each piece gets debated and edited before being voted on in one house, and then the same in the other house and then needs to be reconciled. Things would not only get done quicker and more efficiently, but there would be no question on where a politician stands on the issues. They couldn't blame somebody for being anit-military, because they voted a bill down because of the crap that was added into the bill.

We can send a message, through our state governments and Congress. Vote any incumbent out, make sure that each seat is not only contested by the opposite party, but by a 3rd party and the incumbents own party. We vote enough 3rd party politicians into congress, and they have no choice but to work together.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 

voting third party here! let's rock this nation & make a change people!!

Originally Posted by: 4PackGirl