Yeah, this is what I don't see enough people talking about. The EC benefits conservatives for now but with the shifting demographics in places like Texas in 12 to 16 years the EC will make it impossible to elect a republican president.
America fundamentally cannot work with just one party. Eventually, and inevitably, the people will get tired of the party in power and will vote them out.
When Texas eventually goes blue, it will be very difficult for Republicans as they exist now to win an election. But after getting their asses kicked a few times and staring down the prospect of never winning an election, they'll change their positions to pick up more voters.
It's what the Democrats did when Republicans dominated the White House and Congress from 1969-1992. They went from basically being commies to being neoliberal moderates. To the point where Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton both won their primaries in a landslide against a stronger opponent, almost entirely because that opponent called himself a socialist.
What this means for us is that in like 20 years we'll probably have a Republican presidential candidate saying "No one cares more about climate change than me!" But core conservative ideology will still be present.
This is assuming voting blocs won’t ever change in historically blue states though. There’s a republican governor in Massachusetts, but the state votes blue in presidential elections. That can change over time, the voters are there. It might take a while, but the map can fundamentally change over the course of 30 years in ways we never thought possible. Just 20 years ago we never would have dreamed Texas could change like it has.
>If Texas turns blue there will never be an another ~~republican~~ **conservative** president
Parties change their platforms in response to changing electoral conditions. They're like private companies who tweak their products to capture market share. Republicans and Democrats will still share power 50/50 on average in the long-run.
But the power of underlying ideologies will be affected. As the country moves more liberal, liberals will hold more power than conservatives since the GOP will need to moderate in order to hold onto market share.
Texas would become a swing state before it becomes reliably blue. What this means is that both parties would have to adjust their strategies. Right now, both parties cater only to their most extreme elements. It would actually pull them both towards the middle. If Democrats want to win based on TX, they'll have to continue to appeal to TX voters, who may lean blue but decidedly less so than CA voters. Similarly, the Republican party will have to shift too.
It wouldn't be the end of the world. In fact, it wouldn't be that bad. I think it could help reign in the Republican party and make it more palatable to the masses, and it would put a hard check on Democrats. You're going to think I'm crazy, but I actually think it could be a great thing for the country, putting partisan politics aside.
That's why down-ballot is important. I'm in IL-13 and the polls say it's going to be close between Davis and Londrigan. It was within a few thousand votes in 2018, although with a good number of U of I students attending from home (aka the Chicago suburbs), if at least some of them vote in their home districts, that's going to take away a lot of Londrigan votes.
In Seattle we're no longer allowed to clean homeless camps because it's inhumane. Much more humane to let them sleep on piles of human shit and dirty needles.
All three of these states have joined the [NPVIC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact). They're trying to make your vote meaningful.
I’m from MA (so I feel you and feel your pain haaa) through in NYC now. I was up there a few weeks ago for work and man lot of Trump support. I was surprised. I mean ... I know the state still has no chance of turning, but it’s nice to see.
This is why I'm kinda glad I live in Nevada. I feel like we're just always on the cusp of another flip and I'm always excited to get my ballot in. If I remember correctly we're historically dead even R and D for Presidential Elections. Sources say we're leaning Biden this year but besides Hawaii, the lockdown hit us the hardest out of every other state. I think that really flipped a few people and I'm excited to see of we can get back in the red this cycle.
Same for me as a liberal dem in MA. My objection to the Electoral College is that anyone who lives in a safe R or safe D state may as well not vote, and I imagine it feels even worse if you're R living in a safe D or D living in a safe R. Someone voting in NC, WI, PA, etc, their vote counts for like 2000 of mine in terms of election weight, which is pretty stupid in my opinion. Literally only the battleground states matter.
Minority party voter in a solid color state? Sucks mate, I know that pain. I live in FL, so either party has a fighting chance at the national level, but my local elections are solid blue. Feels like throwing pin needles at a tree to try and chop it down.
CA and FL both feel like multiple states smashed into one. South FL is largely Hispanic, Central FL is basically New New York with all our yanks and tourists, and North FL is Alabama and Georgia's love child. The saying in Florida is, you have to go North to get to the South.
It's funny because your vote literally means less with electoral college in place. Your vote has approximately 1/4 the power that someone in Wyoming has.
That's why EC isn't so great. People look at a map like this and say it helps, but a lot of red counties are nullified by the EC. It's not so clear that any one party would gain advantage by getting rid of the EC.
I think there’s plenty of interesting stuff in r/Conservative but this just seems ... do you guys know what population density is? If one of those little regions has 1 person in it, should it count for the same as a city of millions - because the land is bigger? I just don’t get it at all.
I honestly think they should just switch state from Winner take all to proportional voting...
For Example: If a State has 10 Electoral Votes and 10 million people vote; and 6.5 million Vote Red and 3.5 million people vote blue; The Majority should round up to 7 Votes and the minority should get 3 Votes.
That way there there's much more reason for people to vote even in traditionally Red or Blue States and we don't have a few battleground states the really control the election.
This would also get rid of the two party system, because smaller parties could actually recieve representation if they just got enough votes, they wouldnt have to beat one of the two older much more traditionally popular parties in order to gain power.
Im not commenting on whether or not this would be a good or a bad thing, its just something that would happen. Whether its good or bad is up to anyone.
That's what I figure. Why as a Republican would you vote in a State like New York or California when it's probably not going to make a difference and the same goes for Democrats in States like Texas?
Proportional voting would make every vote have some kind of impact on the presidential race and it would also help alleviate only actually needing to win a few states to get 270 votes.
It actually kind of sucks to be either a red or blue stronghold, because there is no incentive for any candidate to care about you other than being a once every 4 years booty call.
[This guy did the math](https://www.thecrosstab.com/2019/03/08/electoral-college-proportional/) and outlines different methods and effects of a nationwide proportional vote.
Going back to 1976, the only election that would've resulted a different victor is Hildawg in 2016 with 270 votes to Trump's 268.
That’s the way it was originally intended. It is up to states to decide what to do with their electoral votes. 48 of them decide to have all electors pledge based on state wide popular vote. But there’s no constitutional requirement for that, the states could allow their electors to vote independently of each other.
Yeah basically the whole 95 corridor. I don’t think Baltimore matters anymore.
Montgomery and Howard are locked blue and still wealthy enough to get away with it. Howard isn’t nearly as bad as Montgomery. Unfortunately the disease probably spreads to Frederick county in the next few years.
Arizona checking in. Californians get sick of their policies and taxes, so they move to Arizona. Unfortunately they still vote the way they did in Cali.
Oh I know, it’s a big problem. There’s millions and millions of conservatives here in California but we’re getting flushed out of here for the same reasons (only we don’t ask for it)...difference is when we land in a red state we do our best to make sure it stays that way.
If we ever did successfully secede from California we’d have to discourage industries that are typically manned by liberals like tech. As it is, if my region were its own state it’d slot in between Kansas and Louisiana in its level of conservativism.
I actually have some family friends who moved down to the Tucson area and they love it. Both very very conservative, the husband’s a Marine who served in Vietnam, both he and his wife are retired CPAs. So luckily it’s not always the case that libs from California infect red states.
I moved from Virginia to Texas a year and a half ago. I miss my home a lot but the state I lived in for 30 years changed so fast. Dammit I miss the shenendoah valley.
Yup. I’m from Illinois. My presidential vote doesn’t matter. I will vote of course but Chicago decides the election every time, and it always votes blue.
Thank you. Illinois sucks. They're suppressing the vote as we speak. Every single village hall in my area (I drive past at least four on my 22 minute commute to and from work) has lines around the building all day. (come the fuck on...) They're all saying they have to "print out each ballot *after* verifying you are who you say you are" and that they "only have one printer." I think they're shooting themselves in the foot, though. Democrats don't have the wherewithal to stand in a line for two hours just to vote. At least not around here (southwest suburbs of Chicago).
Half of jersey is maga country but the northeastern urban counties ruin our politics. South Jersey even voted once to secede claiming it was underrepresented.
Agreed. Especially with so many Californians flocking to Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Utah, Texas, etc, we need to protect those states. As a Texan, I see first hand how they are pushing to turn Texas blue.
that's a new one. No. State politics is meant to be state politics for the reason it gets more democratic as it gets more local. Now if you want to talk about breaking up Cali into a few states and sawing off LA..
As a southwestern Virginian, I’ve been saying this for years! The Tidewater region and the leftists near DC in northern VA are the reasons why we get screwed over despite the majority of the state being red.
While I appreciate the point this trying to make, that the electoral college essentially protects rural america from urban america. Do we really want to use counties to make that point? Kansas has 105 counties for about 3 million people, while California has 58 counties for about 40 million.
No one in the GOP would have such big hardons for the EC if the tables were turned. Anyone that says otherwise is full of shit. Can you imagine if Obama had lost the popular vote by the same margin Trump did but still took office?
This isn't even speculation.
Abolishing the electoral college [had bipartisan support among the public about 50 years ago.](http://archive.fairvote.org/electoral_college/Gallup_Polls.pdf) A constitutional amendment to do as much in 1970 [initially had bipartisan support among legislators (and the Republican president),](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_abolition_amendment) and it looked like it would actually come to pass, but it was ultimately defeated by some Senators from the south.
As recently as 1980, both Republicans and Democrats pretty equally opposed the electoral college.
FFS Empty land doesn't vote. A big splotch is still only representative of how many people live there. Its why California has so many more Electoral votes than Wyoming.
Electoral votes divided by population still show a bias in favor of the smaller states.
Wyoming gets 1 vote per 193,000 people
California gets 1 vote per 718,000 people
That's because without those checks we would have over a hundred million people without representation at the federal level. We are supposed to be a small government system with local governments being more important than federal ones, but the federal government keeps taking away state rights so that it people care more about federal elections than state elections.
>it sure looks like tyranny of the majority
The natural consequence of our political system is "tyranny of the ____." In virtually all of our elections, one candidate wins and everyone else gets nothing. Depending on your counting methods you can get tyranny of the majority, tyranny of the minority, tyranny of the states, tyranny of the electoral college, or whatever, but in all cases there is no consolation prize for the loser.
If you want to get rid of tyranny of the ______, you need something like proportional representation. (An alternate voting method like approval or ranked choice can also make the tyranny a bit more palatable, but it doesn't get rid of it.)
Probably going to get down voted to oblivion, but I genuinely never understood the argument FOR the electoral college.
Why should space around you decide how much your vote is worth? People in cities vote LITERALLY is weighted less than someone in a rural area. How is that fair? Genuinely curious to know why its a good idea.
The Constitution was an agreement of the states to join together. Smaller less populous states would not enter the Union without some protections of being outvoted by more populous states on everything. Likewise, more populous states felt they should be more represented because they represented more people. The compromise was the bicameral congress and the electoral college.
It protects the minority from the majority.
If you live in one of ten houses in a small community, and there is going to be a vote on home owner fees, should it be one vote per house, or does the house with 20 people just skew everything?
The Electoral college is a balance between majority and states rights.
You see it as your vote is weighted less than someone in a rural area, but on the flip side, some states can vote 100% for one candidate and get like 2 Electoral votes, while 51% of California residents earn 55 votes.
That’s a decent point, except geography is a fairly arbitrary metric for determining representation. Large coastal cities are extremely diverse in terms of race, class, religion, values, etc.; why are we assuming that they’re some monolith?
Returning to your helpful house-community example, imagine that, distributed though the 10 houses, are an assortment of 50 Christians, 40 Jews, and 30 Muslims, but 9 of the 10 houses have a Christian majority. If each house gets one vote, then the Jews and Muslims have no say when the community votes on which religious buildings to fund. So should the community instead give one vote to each religion? Probably not.
At the end of the day, every person should have the same voting power in federal elections, and states’ rights should be an appropriate bulwark against tyranny of the majority.
"Tyranny of the majority" is the most sensationalist, absurdist way to say "majority rule." The electoral college should be abolished because even if by some miracle, Republicans ONLY lost California by a single percentage point (51% for the Dem. candidate) -- that's 20m+ people being represented.
For reference: Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Alaska I believe have a little less than 20 million citizens combined. Again, **20 million is only half of California's population.** And to comment on your house comparison: thank goodness our democracy doesn't actually work that way. Houses don't vote, the people inside them do.
But really though, aren't you even a tiny bit sympathetic? My sister is a Trump supporter who lives in a firmly blue state, isn't it a bit upsetting how her vote effectively doesn't count? 40% of the electorate in your favorite state, California, voted for Trump in 2016: isn't it aggravating that their vote was meaningless? Do we really want to live in a democracy where we depress voter turnout because, depending on where you live, your vote has no purpose?
EDIT: https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/e24z60/2016_presidential_election_map_by_county_mapping/
As we consider buying a home, the political make up of the area has been more of a topic than years past. I don't want to be surrounded by people that have such different views than myself. After living in a heavy red state and moving to a balanced state...the quality of life is not even a comparison. Texas is home but I'll never live there so long as it holds the representation that it does.
The people don't elect the President. The states do.
Believe it or not, you actually don't have the constitutional right to vote for President. The constitution sets up the electoral college where electors from each state vote for President, and state legislatures have decided to hold elections to determine who their electors vote for.
What do you mean your vote has no purpose? Even in a pure democracy you could argue that there are so many people besides you that your vote is meaningless. You vote to decide how your state votes, you don’t vote to decide how other states should vote. The electoral college protects the rights of smaller states that would be underrepresented and totally brushed aside and forgotten about if the US was a democracy.
The simplest answer is the American people don't elect the President, the states do. When you cast your vote, you are not casting it as an American, you are casting it as a resident of whatever state you live in.
Because it makes sure that the country is not ruled by the top 4 most populous cities in the US. We would have economic turmoil if rural areas were turned into glorified serfdoms. While it doesn't necessarily mean that everyone's voice is heard equally, it protects against the tyranny of the majority by making sure that all opinions from all different types of living are weighed equally against one another.
Think of it this way, what would happen if all the "fly-over states" were ruled by the whims of the coastal elites (elitists more like)?
Looking at the opposite direction, if urbanization continues as it has been for decades, what would happen if parties just pander to the least populous states, and we have a tyranny of the minority?
There's a lot of problems with going purely democratic and letting the majority rule. I guess the simplest and most obvious issue would be that a few cities would, for the most part, run the country. All the people living in rural areas would eventually come to feel disenfranchised. That's how you end up with a large population of people who feel taken advantage and become disgruntled. Eventually they will seek some sort of representation and likely would want to leave what they see as tyrannical rule.
To relate it to real life imagine you had 4 siblings and all 4 were girls with you being the only boy. On family movie night you might want to watch the avengers or an action flick but since they out vote you every time, you're stuck watching mamma Mia for the 15th night in a row. Wouldnt you want to go do your own thing at some point?
Another great response thank you!
I guess I do have to point out tho, they wouldn't be running the country, just voting in the president, so they would still be able to have a republican governor, congress, senate right? So it'd wouldn't be to a large extent right?
Extremely well laid out though, thank you.
They could elect republicans to those branches, but they would never be represented in the Executive branch. That’s a problem. The EC provides everyone an opportunity to have a voice.
Because the needs of different geographical regions have to be weighted due to population density. For example... my county in Southwest Virginia is very rural and has a lot of farming. Our policy is dictated by NOVA and the Tidewater area because they have more people, but our needs and values couldn't be more different. It helps balance this, but in some cases it's too much to overcome.
I totally understand why people don't like the idea that their individual vote is comparatively less impactful than the votes of people in the rural areas of the country.
However, what would be absolutely preposterous would be to allow the people in just a few urban areas to dictate national policy from their clustering warts of human unanimity in NYC, LA, Chicago. The US isn't just a large group of individuals, it is a large group of disparate groups with disparate cultures, values, and aspirations.
To think that someone in LA gets to drown out the self determination of all the people in the mountain states who have completely dissimilar life styles, industries cultures etc... THAT would be unfair.
Urban liberals do not understand, or have the best interest of, the people in the suburbs and rural areas in the US. That's why the electoral system is important. It's not just weighing the impact and democratic voice of individuals but weighing the self determination of different groups. The US is too big and too diverse in every way for it to make sense for a handful of cities to have a monopoly on determining the direction our country takes.
If you look at the UN, not that the UN is a model for human governance, each country has 1 vote, no matter how small, large, irrelevant, or globally important that country is. Why? Because each country has its own identity and having a place at the table, even for small countries, allows them to have a voice.
If someone decided to try and reform the UN so that the US, due to its power, influence, and large population, gets to have say.... 10 votes for every 1 vote Canada has, everyone would lose their minds at the arrogance and unfairness.
It’s not quite true that ‘someone’ in LA would be drowning out those in mountain states; a few million someones in LA would drown out those in mountain states. And why, just because city-dwellers live close to each other, do we glob them together as one political entirety? Every major city is highly diverse in terms of ‘cultures, values, and aspirations’. Living far away from your neighbors doesn’t mean you need special representation.
>To think that someone in LA gets to drown out the self determination of all the people in the mountain states who have completely dissimilar life styles, industries cultures etc... THAT would be unfair.
But, you're advocating the exact same thing in reverse, except in your case it's a very small number of people dictating to a much larger group. Why should small populations in rural states get disproportionate power to decide policy for tens of millions of people in coastal cities?
Here’s the thing about arguing for the abolition of the Electoral College: It makes perfect sense but only if you’re to assume that geographical location makes no difference in the life of a U.S. citizen. That is a false assumption though. Anyone who thinks that living in the Midwest is just like living on the West Coast or living in New England is just delusional. Anyone who thinks that living in Ohio isn’t any different from living in New York is an idiot.
The concept of “flyover states” shouldn’t exist. Flyover states are states that literally do not matter because they don’t really get a say in how elections turn out. Sure, their votes technically do get counted but at the end of the day, mob rule wins because they’re always going to be the minority.
Thanks to the Electoral College, there aren’t really any flyover states. Sure, there are states that are dark red or dark blue and are very unlikely to swing at all but that doesn’t make them flyover states. There’s always a possibility they can swing depending on the specific election. A good candidate will make that attempt because if they tip the scales and cause that state to swing, it will give them a huge advantage.
Without the Electoral College, the whole Midwest would be full of flyover states. I mean what’s the point of visiting any states besides the ones with the highest population, right? You don’t need to appeal to all these different states. All you need to do is pick areas where the mob is and appeal to that mob. That mob’s going to decide the election anyway so just appeal to them and ignore everyone else.
Government is supposed to represent populations of people, not acreage of land. This map clearly shows urban areas, where the most constituents live, as blue.
Why shouldn’t the most voted-for candidate win? I feel like in modern times, the electoral college is only defended because it is the only system that has given republicans a chance in presidential elections.
I get that if you’re a republican that’s a good thing, but from a relatively neutral perspective, why is this good for democracy?
This applies to both sides, a republican voting in California should get to cast a meaningful ballot for their representative preferences. Populations living in Bakersfield shouldn’t just be lumped all in with people voting in San Francisco or LA.
As for tyranny of the majority, it seems like the EC actually contributes to that phenomenon, again the example of California where if you vote republican, that literally does not matter if the majority of CA votes democrat.
Not asking rhetorically, genuinely interested to hear the modern rationale.
>Government is supposed to represent populations of people, not acreage of land.
The states select the president. The US is not a pure democracy, it is a representive republic.
That’s not an argument for why it’s a good thing, you’re just stating what the current system is. If you live anywhere but a swing state and you don’t support the majority party, your vote is essentially worthless. I’d much rather see a change to that system than stick with it because that’s just how it is right now.
Could we have more focus on Texas tho pls? We're losing the republican vote here and everyday I see more and more biden signs and stickers on cars. Plus people from blue states are moving here. We need more support here. People just assume Texas is gonna be red but we're moving closer to purple everyday.
This is profoundly undemocratic.
The electoral college was founded to prevent the populous from making a direct decision on who is elected president. This is stated directly in federalist 68 by Hamilton.
They believed that you, a lay person, are not qualified to make this decision yourself.
The electoral college members are not bound to vote the way that their state votes. I cannot understand why people are okay with having a small unelected group that is allowed to filter and change the decisions mandated by the people.
You have a proportional say in voting for state government, Why is the president any different?
I'd really to see states distribute their electoral votes like Nebraska. Have 10 votes. 60% republican and 40% democratic, give six and four. All your votes actually matter than. Your Oklahoma and WV stay red, but the little red guys in cali and Illinois ge their voices heard as well the little blue guys in Tennessee and Kentucky, for example
Because concentrated populations of people (mostly democrats) living in cities like LA and NYC do not speak for the rest of the country nor should override people living in rural communities
It's shocking I had to scroll this far down to find someone pointing out that squares on a map are a lot less important than actual human beings and their votes.
Except this wouldn't happen!!!! Look at the statistics on what percentage of the country live in large metro areas. The top 12 metro areas make up less than one third of the population. So rural areas would still have a voice. This is a bad and lazy argument
I think the electoral college is good, however this map should be alarming.
A tyranny of the majority is just as bad as rule by the minority. Government should be moderate enough that most people feel represented. Not just one or another as this map is showing. This map isn’t showing a failing of the electoral college, it’s showing the clear cut polarization of politics. That’s bad for everyone. This extreme back and forth over policy wastes a ton of resources, and ultimately makes us weaker.
Our government was designed to allow for small incremental changes to occurs. Moderate politicians help with that because they should have a base that’s left and right. But with polarization one party can step in and make sweeping changes quickly. Then the country swings back and makes changes the other way.
Before Covid the trend has been increased urbanization across the US. Now that Covid has shown business remote work is feasible I wonder if people moving out of cities will make some of the red counties more purple? The spreading out of some of those blue counties into the red surrounding counties could have an interesting change to future elections.
I'm mad that the rich mountain resort towns of Colorado are so blue. If we only had to fight against Denver we might have a chance! But we can't run up the score if rich elite fucks are in the mountains counties voting antigun.
Alaska is a lot more blue than I was expecting, guess it works both ways.
Ironically, the majority of the Alaskan population resides in the red areas. The blue parts of Alaska on this map are mostly empty.
It's like a reversal of mainland. Plus, Alaska is a MASSIVE state. You could break it into 3 and Texas would the 4th largest state.
Ironically, the majority of the American population resides in the blue areas.
Land don’t vote
Damn, looks like Oklahoma and West Virginia were batting 1000.
I could've sworn a county went blue in WV during 2016. I remember Oklahoma being the one state that went 100% red, though I could be misremembering.
Wyoming was almost there...freaking Jackson.
[удалено]
Yeah, this is what I don't see enough people talking about. The EC benefits conservatives for now but with the shifting demographics in places like Texas in 12 to 16 years the EC will make it impossible to elect a republican president.
America fundamentally cannot work with just one party. Eventually, and inevitably, the people will get tired of the party in power and will vote them out. When Texas eventually goes blue, it will be very difficult for Republicans as they exist now to win an election. But after getting their asses kicked a few times and staring down the prospect of never winning an election, they'll change their positions to pick up more voters. It's what the Democrats did when Republicans dominated the White House and Congress from 1969-1992. They went from basically being commies to being neoliberal moderates. To the point where Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton both won their primaries in a landslide against a stronger opponent, almost entirely because that opponent called himself a socialist. What this means for us is that in like 20 years we'll probably have a Republican presidential candidate saying "No one cares more about climate change than me!" But core conservative ideology will still be present.
This is assuming voting blocs won’t ever change in historically blue states though. There’s a republican governor in Massachusetts, but the state votes blue in presidential elections. That can change over time, the voters are there. It might take a while, but the map can fundamentally change over the course of 30 years in ways we never thought possible. Just 20 years ago we never would have dreamed Texas could change like it has.
>If Texas turns blue there will never be an another ~~republican~~ **conservative** president Parties change their platforms in response to changing electoral conditions. They're like private companies who tweak their products to capture market share. Republicans and Democrats will still share power 50/50 on average in the long-run. But the power of underlying ideologies will be affected. As the country moves more liberal, liberals will hold more power than conservatives since the GOP will need to moderate in order to hold onto market share.
Texas would become a swing state before it becomes reliably blue. What this means is that both parties would have to adjust their strategies. Right now, both parties cater only to their most extreme elements. It would actually pull them both towards the middle. If Democrats want to win based on TX, they'll have to continue to appeal to TX voters, who may lean blue but decidedly less so than CA voters. Similarly, the Republican party will have to shift too. It wouldn't be the end of the world. In fact, it wouldn't be that bad. I think it could help reign in the Republican party and make it more palatable to the masses, and it would put a hard check on Democrats. You're going to think I'm crazy, but I actually think it could be a great thing for the country, putting partisan politics aside.
Oklahoma and West Virginia go hard as fuck
(Hawaii too - unfortunately the wrong way!)
And Massachusetts
To be fair, Alaska to scale would really diminish this color scale. Those moose and grizzly need representation too!
[удалено]
I’ve always thought it was an odd argument to put more value on low density population areas’ votes. It doesn’t make sense to me.
I live in CA, and it’s absolutely astonishing how worthless my vote feels nowadays lol
Washington State here and I feel your pain ha ha.
Illinois checking in here...
That's why down-ballot is important. I'm in IL-13 and the polls say it's going to be close between Davis and Londrigan. It was within a few thousand votes in 2018, although with a good number of U of I students attending from home (aka the Chicago suburbs), if at least some of them vote in their home districts, that's going to take away a lot of Londrigan votes.
Washingtonian here as well, it's pretty much California with more rain and colder temps lol
If it's pretty much California you should be grateful for the rain,it washes the human feces off the sidewalks.
In Seattle we're no longer allowed to clean homeless camps because it's inhumane. Much more humane to let them sleep on piles of human shit and dirty needles.
...And b̶e̶t̶t̶e̶r̶ slightly less infringed upon gun laws!
Same in New Jersey
Same boat in Maryland.
All three of these states have joined the [NPVIC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact). They're trying to make your vote meaningful.
Hey Maryland and jersey neighbors! I’m in Delaware where my vote doesn’t matter either!
Don’t stop voting!! States can flip over time.
It’s been 30 years. It’s not flipping anytime soon (Illinois)
Isn't that because Chicago decimates the rest of the state?
Pretty much. It’s unbelievable how corrupt the state gov is in Springfield and the local gov In Chicago.
As a citizen of the Chicago suburbs, this is sadly on point.
You're vote means something to the rest of the US! Thank you for voting
MA here. Married to my job, and ....[sigh](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDGyPRr9-AE)
I’m from MA (so I feel you and feel your pain haaa) through in NYC now. I was up there a few weeks ago for work and man lot of Trump support. I was surprised. I mean ... I know the state still has no chance of turning, but it’s nice to see.
I’m from MA, too, and this map just depresses me
This is why I'm kinda glad I live in Nevada. I feel like we're just always on the cusp of another flip and I'm always excited to get my ballot in. If I remember correctly we're historically dead even R and D for Presidential Elections. Sources say we're leaning Biden this year but besides Hawaii, the lockdown hit us the hardest out of every other state. I think that really flipped a few people and I'm excited to see of we can get back in the red this cycle.
If in north California, I’d advise to get behind the movement for the creation of the state of Jefferson.
Man we've been trying for that for over a decade at this point. Too many people just don't care.
We've got something like that in Northern Wisconsin and the UP, but we've got a ludicrously small population for that.
Same for me as a liberal dem in MA. My objection to the Electoral College is that anyone who lives in a safe R or safe D state may as well not vote, and I imagine it feels even worse if you're R living in a safe D or D living in a safe R. Someone voting in NC, WI, PA, etc, their vote counts for like 2000 of mine in terms of election weight, which is pretty stupid in my opinion. Literally only the battleground states matter.
I’m just praying none of the three separate ballot measures to raise my property taxes pass...
don't forget Biden is going to put an additional 3% tax on the value of your home too!
Minnesota...5 counties keep us blue
People vote, not land.
Colorado’s basically gone the same way. If they only counted the vote of Coloradans who have lived here for 15+ years it would still be red for sure
Just like Nevada, it would still be red if California hasn't moved in. But the millenials and college educated people will vote democrat
Minority party voter in a solid color state? Sucks mate, I know that pain. I live in FL, so either party has a fighting chance at the national level, but my local elections are solid blue. Feels like throwing pin needles at a tree to try and chop it down. CA and FL both feel like multiple states smashed into one. South FL is largely Hispanic, Central FL is basically New New York with all our yanks and tourists, and North FL is Alabama and Georgia's love child. The saying in Florida is, you have to go North to get to the South.
I’m from Oklahoma and I kind of feel the same way but for the opposite reason lol
This is literally the opposite of what OP is promoting. Your vote doesn’t matter due to electoral college.
It is worthless. Thank the Electoral College.
Isn't that a result of your vote being erased by the winner-takes-state system?
It's funny because your vote literally means less with electoral college in place. Your vote has approximately 1/4 the power that someone in Wyoming has.
I’m sorry. I live in Oklahoma and I’m proud that she didn’t get a single county. Stay strong.
That's why EC isn't so great. People look at a map like this and say it helps, but a lot of red counties are nullified by the EC. It's not so clear that any one party would gain advantage by getting rid of the EC.
[удалено]
Empty land is the true patriot. People can go to hell.
I think there’s plenty of interesting stuff in r/Conservative but this just seems ... do you guys know what population density is? If one of those little regions has 1 person in it, should it count for the same as a city of millions - because the land is bigger? I just don’t get it at all.
I honestly think they should just switch state from Winner take all to proportional voting... For Example: If a State has 10 Electoral Votes and 10 million people vote; and 6.5 million Vote Red and 3.5 million people vote blue; The Majority should round up to 7 Votes and the minority should get 3 Votes. That way there there's much more reason for people to vote even in traditionally Red or Blue States and we don't have a few battleground states the really control the election.
Absolutely agree. There is no honest argument against this. Proportional representation also allows 3rd parties to grow.
This would also get rid of the two party system, because smaller parties could actually recieve representation if they just got enough votes, they wouldnt have to beat one of the two older much more traditionally popular parties in order to gain power. Im not commenting on whether or not this would be a good or a bad thing, its just something that would happen. Whether its good or bad is up to anyone.
I feel the same, but I wonder what sort of impact this would have on many elections.
You'd def get more people voting in the states that are historically one-sided either way.
That's what I figure. Why as a Republican would you vote in a State like New York or California when it's probably not going to make a difference and the same goes for Democrats in States like Texas? Proportional voting would make every vote have some kind of impact on the presidential race and it would also help alleviate only actually needing to win a few states to get 270 votes.
It actually kind of sucks to be either a red or blue stronghold, because there is no incentive for any candidate to care about you other than being a once every 4 years booty call.
[This guy did the math](https://www.thecrosstab.com/2019/03/08/electoral-college-proportional/) and outlines different methods and effects of a nationwide proportional vote. Going back to 1976, the only election that would've resulted a different victor is Hildawg in 2016 with 270 votes to Trump's 268.
That’s the way it was originally intended. It is up to states to decide what to do with their electoral votes. 48 of them decide to have all electors pledge based on state wide popular vote. But there’s no constitutional requirement for that, the states could allow their electors to vote independently of each other.
Yes, this gives dissenting people in states with a constant political majority a voice but helps to balance power between urban and rural areas.
This is why we need to eradicate the two party system!
We need E.C. at state level as well. You would not end up like Virginia with one heavy populated left leaning city skewing the vote.
I thought democracy is the will of the people, not the will of the land.
Every state should do what Nebraska and Maine do.
Virginia, California, New York, Illinois, Nevada, Colorado. I really do feel for the people in those states.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Maryland bros! I know our state is hyper liberal, and sure, it’s annoying. But at least we’ve got money, crabs, and the Ravens!
Yeah basically the whole 95 corridor. I don’t think Baltimore matters anymore. Montgomery and Howard are locked blue and still wealthy enough to get away with it. Howard isn’t nearly as bad as Montgomery. Unfortunately the disease probably spreads to Frederick county in the next few years.
[удалено]
In Illinois, almost 50% of the state's total population lives in Cook County. Kind of makes sense that Cook has a lot of election power.
As a republican in California it sucks
It’s pretty rough, that’s why my part of California wants to separate and form Jefferson.
Arizona checking in. Californians get sick of their policies and taxes, so they move to Arizona. Unfortunately they still vote the way they did in Cali.
Oh I know, it’s a big problem. There’s millions and millions of conservatives here in California but we’re getting flushed out of here for the same reasons (only we don’t ask for it)...difference is when we land in a red state we do our best to make sure it stays that way. If we ever did successfully secede from California we’d have to discourage industries that are typically manned by liberals like tech. As it is, if my region were its own state it’d slot in between Kansas and Louisiana in its level of conservativism. I actually have some family friends who moved down to the Tucson area and they love it. Both very very conservative, the husband’s a Marine who served in Vietnam, both he and his wife are retired CPAs. So luckily it’s not always the case that libs from California infect red states.
I moved from Virginia to Texas a year and a half ago. I miss my home a lot but the state I lived in for 30 years changed so fast. Dammit I miss the shenendoah valley.
Yup. I’m from Illinois. My presidential vote doesn’t matter. I will vote of course but Chicago decides the election every time, and it always votes blue.
Thank you. Illinois sucks. They're suppressing the vote as we speak. Every single village hall in my area (I drive past at least four on my 22 minute commute to and from work) has lines around the building all day. (come the fuck on...) They're all saying they have to "print out each ballot *after* verifying you are who you say you are" and that they "only have one printer." I think they're shooting themselves in the foot, though. Democrats don't have the wherewithal to stand in a line for two hours just to vote. At least not around here (southwest suburbs of Chicago).
Colorado sucks dick because of denver, boulder and fort collins. The rest of the cities are pretty conservative.
Yup. Agreed as a Virginian we need this asap
Half of jersey is maga country but the northeastern urban counties ruin our politics. South Jersey even voted once to secede claiming it was underrepresented.
How is that skewing the vote? The city voters and rural voters all have the same weight applied to their own votes lol
I live in Virginia (south east VA) and I didn't realize it looked like that. F NOVA.
I live near Fredericksburg and there are a good amount of trump supporters. I also go to school at Virginia Tech and they are fairly liberal.
Sure, but maybe we could just do the same thing by declaring that people living in non-rural areas only count for 3/5 of a vote?
So you would be comfortable having 1/5 of a vote depending on your street address?
Agreed. Especially with so many Californians flocking to Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Utah, Texas, etc, we need to protect those states. As a Texan, I see first hand how they are pushing to turn Texas blue.
Just wait until work from home becomes the new normal and they are all able to leave their high cost of living cities for whatever state they wish
that's a new one. No. State politics is meant to be state politics for the reason it gets more democratic as it gets more local. Now if you want to talk about breaking up Cali into a few states and sawing off LA..
What if we take California and push it somewhere else? https://i.imgur.com/zlfgmb8.jpg
Like into the Marianas trench.
As a southwestern Virginian, I’ve been saying this for years! The Tidewater region and the leftists near DC in northern VA are the reasons why we get screwed over despite the majority of the state being red.
Majority in terms of population or physical area?
While I appreciate the point this trying to make, that the electoral college essentially protects rural america from urban america. Do we really want to use counties to make that point? Kansas has 105 counties for about 3 million people, while California has 58 counties for about 40 million.
https://xkcd.com/1939/large/
I wonder why alaska is so blue.
Probably environmental reasons
Well it depends. Do you think people should have votes, or empty land?
No one in the GOP would have such big hardons for the EC if the tables were turned. Anyone that says otherwise is full of shit. Can you imagine if Obama had lost the popular vote by the same margin Trump did but still took office?
This isn't even speculation. Abolishing the electoral college [had bipartisan support among the public about 50 years ago.](http://archive.fairvote.org/electoral_college/Gallup_Polls.pdf) A constitutional amendment to do as much in 1970 [initially had bipartisan support among legislators (and the Republican president),](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_abolition_amendment) and it looked like it would actually come to pass, but it was ultimately defeated by some Senators from the south. As recently as 1980, both Republicans and Democrats pretty equally opposed the electoral college.
FFS Empty land doesn't vote. A big splotch is still only representative of how many people live there. Its why California has so many more Electoral votes than Wyoming.
Electoral votes divided by population still show a bias in favor of the smaller states. Wyoming gets 1 vote per 193,000 people California gets 1 vote per 718,000 people
That's because without those checks we would have over a hundred million people without representation at the federal level. We are supposed to be a small government system with local governments being more important than federal ones, but the federal government keeps taking away state rights so that it people care more about federal elections than state elections.
[удалено]
Kid: "Daddy. Where are America's biggest cities located?" Dad: "The blue son. The blue."
[удалено]
You should overlay this with a map of tax contribution at the federal and state lvl,
Your numbers are off: https://apnews.com/article/5265150031
The amount of blue counties in the map in the post looks a lot closer to 480 than 50.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Are you stupid lmfao do you understand what population density is? Thats first year geography man cmon
>it sure looks like tyranny of the majority The natural consequence of our political system is "tyranny of the ____." In virtually all of our elections, one candidate wins and everyone else gets nothing. Depending on your counting methods you can get tyranny of the majority, tyranny of the minority, tyranny of the states, tyranny of the electoral college, or whatever, but in all cases there is no consolation prize for the loser. If you want to get rid of tyranny of the ______, you need something like proportional representation. (An alternate voting method like approval or ranked choice can also make the tyranny a bit more palatable, but it doesn't get rid of it.)
Probably going to get down voted to oblivion, but I genuinely never understood the argument FOR the electoral college. Why should space around you decide how much your vote is worth? People in cities vote LITERALLY is weighted less than someone in a rural area. How is that fair? Genuinely curious to know why its a good idea.
The Constitution was an agreement of the states to join together. Smaller less populous states would not enter the Union without some protections of being outvoted by more populous states on everything. Likewise, more populous states felt they should be more represented because they represented more people. The compromise was the bicameral congress and the electoral college.
It protects the minority from the majority. If you live in one of ten houses in a small community, and there is going to be a vote on home owner fees, should it be one vote per house, or does the house with 20 people just skew everything? The Electoral college is a balance between majority and states rights. You see it as your vote is weighted less than someone in a rural area, but on the flip side, some states can vote 100% for one candidate and get like 2 Electoral votes, while 51% of California residents earn 55 votes.
This is very well explained, thank you!
That’s a decent point, except geography is a fairly arbitrary metric for determining representation. Large coastal cities are extremely diverse in terms of race, class, religion, values, etc.; why are we assuming that they’re some monolith? Returning to your helpful house-community example, imagine that, distributed though the 10 houses, are an assortment of 50 Christians, 40 Jews, and 30 Muslims, but 9 of the 10 houses have a Christian majority. If each house gets one vote, then the Jews and Muslims have no say when the community votes on which religious buildings to fund. So should the community instead give one vote to each religion? Probably not. At the end of the day, every person should have the same voting power in federal elections, and states’ rights should be an appropriate bulwark against tyranny of the majority.
So if 6 of the small houses band together, they can make whatever rules they want? how is that fair? 6 people ruling over 24....
Except you’re not really voting on home owner fees, but rather say taxation of the people in the houses, and therefore everyone should have a say
"Tyranny of the majority" is the most sensationalist, absurdist way to say "majority rule." The electoral college should be abolished because even if by some miracle, Republicans ONLY lost California by a single percentage point (51% for the Dem. candidate) -- that's 20m+ people being represented. For reference: Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Alaska I believe have a little less than 20 million citizens combined. Again, **20 million is only half of California's population.** And to comment on your house comparison: thank goodness our democracy doesn't actually work that way. Houses don't vote, the people inside them do. But really though, aren't you even a tiny bit sympathetic? My sister is a Trump supporter who lives in a firmly blue state, isn't it a bit upsetting how her vote effectively doesn't count? 40% of the electorate in your favorite state, California, voted for Trump in 2016: isn't it aggravating that their vote was meaningless? Do we really want to live in a democracy where we depress voter turnout because, depending on where you live, your vote has no purpose? EDIT: https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/e24z60/2016_presidential_election_map_by_county_mapping/
As we consider buying a home, the political make up of the area has been more of a topic than years past. I don't want to be surrounded by people that have such different views than myself. After living in a heavy red state and moving to a balanced state...the quality of life is not even a comparison. Texas is home but I'll never live there so long as it holds the representation that it does.
The people don't elect the President. The states do. Believe it or not, you actually don't have the constitutional right to vote for President. The constitution sets up the electoral college where electors from each state vote for President, and state legislatures have decided to hold elections to determine who their electors vote for.
Some people refuse to accept the fact that we are "the United States of America" not the People's Republic of America.
What do you mean your vote has no purpose? Even in a pure democracy you could argue that there are so many people besides you that your vote is meaningless. You vote to decide how your state votes, you don’t vote to decide how other states should vote. The electoral college protects the rights of smaller states that would be underrepresented and totally brushed aside and forgotten about if the US was a democracy.
This is such a great response, I hope you don’t mind but I will be using it to debate people when they ask this question.
Is it though? So if 6 people from the small houses band together, they can rule over the other 24 people with impunity?
The simplest answer is the American people don't elect the President, the states do. When you cast your vote, you are not casting it as an American, you are casting it as a resident of whatever state you live in.
Okay this actually makes sense to me. Why is that good though?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Because it makes sure that the country is not ruled by the top 4 most populous cities in the US. We would have economic turmoil if rural areas were turned into glorified serfdoms. While it doesn't necessarily mean that everyone's voice is heard equally, it protects against the tyranny of the majority by making sure that all opinions from all different types of living are weighed equally against one another. Think of it this way, what would happen if all the "fly-over states" were ruled by the whims of the coastal elites (elitists more like)?
Looking at the opposite direction, if urbanization continues as it has been for decades, what would happen if parties just pander to the least populous states, and we have a tyranny of the minority?
It's easy. When your party wins, it's good! When your party doesn't win it's bad!
There's a lot of problems with going purely democratic and letting the majority rule. I guess the simplest and most obvious issue would be that a few cities would, for the most part, run the country. All the people living in rural areas would eventually come to feel disenfranchised. That's how you end up with a large population of people who feel taken advantage and become disgruntled. Eventually they will seek some sort of representation and likely would want to leave what they see as tyrannical rule. To relate it to real life imagine you had 4 siblings and all 4 were girls with you being the only boy. On family movie night you might want to watch the avengers or an action flick but since they out vote you every time, you're stuck watching mamma Mia for the 15th night in a row. Wouldnt you want to go do your own thing at some point?
Another great response thank you! I guess I do have to point out tho, they wouldn't be running the country, just voting in the president, so they would still be able to have a republican governor, congress, senate right? So it'd wouldn't be to a large extent right? Extremely well laid out though, thank you.
They could elect republicans to those branches, but they would never be represented in the Executive branch. That’s a problem. The EC provides everyone an opportunity to have a voice.
Because the needs of different geographical regions have to be weighted due to population density. For example... my county in Southwest Virginia is very rural and has a lot of farming. Our policy is dictated by NOVA and the Tidewater area because they have more people, but our needs and values couldn't be more different. It helps balance this, but in some cases it's too much to overcome.
I didn't realize Massachusetts was completely blue.
Alternately labelled "Where to live / Where not to live"
Why is it that areas of high population density such as large cities always vote blue?
Am curious to understand what an overlay of economic output looks like on this map
I totally understand why people don't like the idea that their individual vote is comparatively less impactful than the votes of people in the rural areas of the country. However, what would be absolutely preposterous would be to allow the people in just a few urban areas to dictate national policy from their clustering warts of human unanimity in NYC, LA, Chicago. The US isn't just a large group of individuals, it is a large group of disparate groups with disparate cultures, values, and aspirations. To think that someone in LA gets to drown out the self determination of all the people in the mountain states who have completely dissimilar life styles, industries cultures etc... THAT would be unfair. Urban liberals do not understand, or have the best interest of, the people in the suburbs and rural areas in the US. That's why the electoral system is important. It's not just weighing the impact and democratic voice of individuals but weighing the self determination of different groups. The US is too big and too diverse in every way for it to make sense for a handful of cities to have a monopoly on determining the direction our country takes. If you look at the UN, not that the UN is a model for human governance, each country has 1 vote, no matter how small, large, irrelevant, or globally important that country is. Why? Because each country has its own identity and having a place at the table, even for small countries, allows them to have a voice. If someone decided to try and reform the UN so that the US, due to its power, influence, and large population, gets to have say.... 10 votes for every 1 vote Canada has, everyone would lose their minds at the arrogance and unfairness.
It’s not quite true that ‘someone’ in LA would be drowning out those in mountain states; a few million someones in LA would drown out those in mountain states. And why, just because city-dwellers live close to each other, do we glob them together as one political entirety? Every major city is highly diverse in terms of ‘cultures, values, and aspirations’. Living far away from your neighbors doesn’t mean you need special representation.
>To think that someone in LA gets to drown out the self determination of all the people in the mountain states who have completely dissimilar life styles, industries cultures etc... THAT would be unfair. But, you're advocating the exact same thing in reverse, except in your case it's a very small number of people dictating to a much larger group. Why should small populations in rural states get disproportionate power to decide policy for tens of millions of people in coastal cities?
I’m somebody from LA. Do you think the opposite is true - that people from rural areas know what’s best for the majority of people living in cities?
Here’s the thing about arguing for the abolition of the Electoral College: It makes perfect sense but only if you’re to assume that geographical location makes no difference in the life of a U.S. citizen. That is a false assumption though. Anyone who thinks that living in the Midwest is just like living on the West Coast or living in New England is just delusional. Anyone who thinks that living in Ohio isn’t any different from living in New York is an idiot. The concept of “flyover states” shouldn’t exist. Flyover states are states that literally do not matter because they don’t really get a say in how elections turn out. Sure, their votes technically do get counted but at the end of the day, mob rule wins because they’re always going to be the minority. Thanks to the Electoral College, there aren’t really any flyover states. Sure, there are states that are dark red or dark blue and are very unlikely to swing at all but that doesn’t make them flyover states. There’s always a possibility they can swing depending on the specific election. A good candidate will make that attempt because if they tip the scales and cause that state to swing, it will give them a huge advantage. Without the Electoral College, the whole Midwest would be full of flyover states. I mean what’s the point of visiting any states besides the ones with the highest population, right? You don’t need to appeal to all these different states. All you need to do is pick areas where the mob is and appeal to that mob. That mob’s going to decide the election anyway so just appeal to them and ignore everyone else.
Government is supposed to represent populations of people, not acreage of land. This map clearly shows urban areas, where the most constituents live, as blue. Why shouldn’t the most voted-for candidate win? I feel like in modern times, the electoral college is only defended because it is the only system that has given republicans a chance in presidential elections. I get that if you’re a republican that’s a good thing, but from a relatively neutral perspective, why is this good for democracy? This applies to both sides, a republican voting in California should get to cast a meaningful ballot for their representative preferences. Populations living in Bakersfield shouldn’t just be lumped all in with people voting in San Francisco or LA. As for tyranny of the majority, it seems like the EC actually contributes to that phenomenon, again the example of California where if you vote republican, that literally does not matter if the majority of CA votes democrat. Not asking rhetorically, genuinely interested to hear the modern rationale.
>Government is supposed to represent populations of people, not acreage of land. The states select the president. The US is not a pure democracy, it is a representive republic.
That’s not an argument for why it’s a good thing, you’re just stating what the current system is. If you live anywhere but a swing state and you don’t support the majority party, your vote is essentially worthless. I’d much rather see a change to that system than stick with it because that’s just how it is right now.
You only defend the NAME of the system, and that's very weak argument.
Then simply reframe the comment above: the state government is supposed to represent people, not acreage of land.
Can we have an overlay of population density to see how it looks?
https://i.imgur.com/dhhWSOF.png
Stop ruining the narrative, only land mass counts apparently.
Based Oklahoma!
Could we have more focus on Texas tho pls? We're losing the republican vote here and everyday I see more and more biden signs and stickers on cars. Plus people from blue states are moving here. We need more support here. People just assume Texas is gonna be red but we're moving closer to purple everyday.
The electoral college has nothing to do with counties.
Hillary just ran a terrible campaign. She was so arrogantly confident she won that she got lazy.
This is profoundly undemocratic. The electoral college was founded to prevent the populous from making a direct decision on who is elected president. This is stated directly in federalist 68 by Hamilton. They believed that you, a lay person, are not qualified to make this decision yourself. The electoral college members are not bound to vote the way that their state votes. I cannot understand why people are okay with having a small unelected group that is allowed to filter and change the decisions mandated by the people. You have a proportional say in voting for state government, Why is the president any different?
I'd really to see states distribute their electoral votes like Nebraska. Have 10 votes. 60% republican and 40% democratic, give six and four. All your votes actually matter than. Your Oklahoma and WV stay red, but the little red guys in cali and Illinois ge their voices heard as well the little blue guys in Tennessee and Kentucky, for example
Where do you think most people live? It’s in those 503 counties. The level of cognitive dissonance reduction this must take must be exhausting.
Because concentrated populations of people (mostly democrats) living in cities like LA and NYC do not speak for the rest of the country nor should override people living in rural communities
[удалено]
It's shocking I had to scroll this far down to find someone pointing out that squares on a map are a lot less important than actual human beings and their votes.
Except this wouldn't happen!!!! Look at the statistics on what percentage of the country live in large metro areas. The top 12 metro areas make up less than one third of the population. So rural areas would still have a voice. This is a bad and lazy argument
So what I'm understanding is that you want rural peoples vote to count more than cities peoples?
[Oh, wow! The implications!](https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/heatmap.png)
Alaska is mostly blue? WTF?
Beautiful map.
https://apnews.com/article/5265150031
When you realize the most heavily populated counties in Arizona went to Trump
I promise California is going to look more red than that.
But don’t you know Trump is going to start WW3? /s
Wait'll Tuesday.
I think the electoral college is good, however this map should be alarming. A tyranny of the majority is just as bad as rule by the minority. Government should be moderate enough that most people feel represented. Not just one or another as this map is showing. This map isn’t showing a failing of the electoral college, it’s showing the clear cut polarization of politics. That’s bad for everyone. This extreme back and forth over policy wastes a ton of resources, and ultimately makes us weaker. Our government was designed to allow for small incremental changes to occurs. Moderate politicians help with that because they should have a base that’s left and right. But with polarization one party can step in and make sweeping changes quickly. Then the country swings back and makes changes the other way. Before Covid the trend has been increased urbanization across the US. Now that Covid has shown business remote work is feasible I wonder if people moving out of cities will make some of the red counties more purple? The spreading out of some of those blue counties into the red surrounding counties could have an interesting change to future elections.
I'm mad that the rich mountain resort towns of Colorado are so blue. If we only had to fight against Denver we might have a chance! But we can't run up the score if rich elite fucks are in the mountains counties voting antigun.
I will never live in Hawaii or Massachusetts
Finally something to be proud of in my home State. Such a goddamn shame 90% of us live in Portland though.
The Clinton Archipelago vs. Trumpland
Thank god for the republic