Current Events > imagine allowing elections to be won by land mass rather than popular vote

(+) Yeah! (+)

this post was brought to you by the Actual Democracy gang
---

America has never been a democracy lol

And land is everything in this country.. Hell, you couldn't even vote without being a landowner back in the day.
---

Empty tracts of land deserve more representation than black people do, according to the GOP.
---

this is why we need full communism so we can get rid of elections altogether
---

It's not empty landmasses. It's the widest amount of demographies
---

_B0xxY2J0sHBK__ posted...

It's not empty landmasses. It's the widest amount of demographies

You mean the inner cities?
---

Popular vote is irrelevant.
---

Solar_Crimson posted...

_B0xxY2J0sHBK__ posted...

It's not empty landmasses. It's the widest amount of demographies

You mean the inner cities?

No. I mean I'd rather someone who appeals to inner city, suburbia, rural areas, retirees, etc be elected because they would be campaigning with the most people in mind which benefits more people. I mean, why should we elect someone who ignores a big demographic?
---

AlephZero posted...

this is why we need full communism so we can get rid of elections altogether

what
---

_B0xxY2J0sHBK__ posted...

Solar_Crimson posted...

_B0xxY2J0sHBK__ posted...

It's not empty landmasses. It's the widest amount of demographies

You mean the inner cities?

No. I mean I'd rather someone who appeals to inner city, suburbia, rural areas, retirees, etc be elected because they would be campaigning with the most people in mind which benefits more people. I mean, why should we elect someone who ignores a big demographic?

Doesn't the person with the most votes imply that person was most successful at appealing to the widest demographic of people?
---

There are more working class citizens than upper class citizens so the popular vote would give an advantage to democrats since the working class is more likely to vote that way. The folks in charge of this country can't let that happen now can they?
---

A_Good_Boy posted...

_B0xxY2J0sHBK__ posted...

Solar_Crimson posted...

_B0xxY2J0sHBK__ posted...

It's not empty landmasses. It's the widest amount of demographies

You mean the inner cities?

No. I mean I'd rather someone who appeals to inner city, suburbia, rural areas, retirees, etc be elected because they would be campaigning with the most people in mind which benefits more people. I mean, why should we elect someone who ignores a big demographic?

Doesn't the person with the most votes imply that person was most successful at appealing to the widest demographic of people?

No. Say there is a household with 6 people that are A, and 1 person each of B, C, D, E and F. Now let's say candadite 1 gets one vote from A, B, C D and E and candadite 2 gets 5 votes from A and 1 from 5.

Candidate 2 got more votes but only through two demographies while candadite 1 got one less total vote but over a wider range of people. I'd argue candadite 1 is the better choice for leadership. That was 2016 which is what I assume this topic is referencing
---

A_Good_Boy posted...

_B0xxY2J0sHBK__ posted...

Solar_Crimson posted...

_B0xxY2J0sHBK__ posted...

It's not empty landmasses. It's the widest amount of demographies

You mean the inner cities?

No. I mean I'd rather someone who appeals to inner city, suburbia, rural areas, retirees, etc be elected because they would be campaigning with the most people in mind which benefits more people. I mean, why should we elect someone who ignores a big demographic?

Doesn't the person with the most votes imply that person was most successful at appealing to the widest demographic of people?

why are you expecting a good faith conversation from a Republican?

_B0xxY2J0sHBK__ posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

_B0xxY2J0sHBK__ posted...

Solar_Crimson posted...

_B0xxY2J0sHBK__ posted...

It's not empty landmasses. It's the widest amount of demographies

You mean the inner cities?

No. I mean I'd rather someone who appeals to inner city, suburbia, rural areas, retirees, etc be elected because they would be campaigning with the most people in mind which benefits more people. I mean, why should we elect someone who ignores a big demographic?

Doesn't the person with the most votes imply that person was most successful at appealing to the widest demographic of people?

No. Say there is a household with 6 people that are A, and 1 person each of B, C, D, E and F. Now let's say candadite 1 gets one vote from A, B, C D and E and candadite 2 gets 5 votes from A and 1 from 5.

Candidate 2 got more votes but only through two demographies while candadite 1 got one less total vote but over a wider range of people. I'd argue candadite 1 is the better choice for leadership. That was 2016 which is what I assume this topic is referencing

what are "demographies"
---

It's a group of people.
---

I'm not sure "candidates should represent diverse voting blocs" is a winning argument for the GOP
---

fenderbender321 posted...

Imagine relying on your average person to elect good leaders through voting.

Our system still relies on people voting. It just disproportionately gives power to rural and white voters.
---

imagine relying on averagejoel for a good topic
---

did someone whine about this on Chapo or something yesterday? my friend just came to me with these same talking points like 20 minutes ago. i dont understand what "more people across the nation voted X instead of Y" means in a direct election like this other than being a neat little factoid, since each state votes for their own representation
---

Romulox28 posted...

did someone whine about this on Chapo or something yesterday? my friend just came out me with these same talking points like 20 minutes ago. i dont understand what "more people across the nation voted X instead of Y" means in a direct election like this other than being a neat little factoid, since each state votes for their own representation

It's evidence of the ways in which popular will isn't actually reflected by representation in the government.
---

Antifar posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

Imagine relying on your average person to elect good leaders through voting.

Our system still relies on people voting. It just disproportionately gives power to rural and white voters.

---

in America, not all voices are equal.
---

Godnorgosh posted...

averagejoel posted...

AlephZero posted...

this is why we need full communism so we can get rid of elections altogether

what

You heard the man. We need to elect Nancy Pelosi in 2020 and put a stop to this same old song and dance. The election to end all elections.

Imagine believing that Nancy Pelosi is anything other than neoliberal centrist.
---

Romulox28 posted...

did someone whine about this on Chapo or something yesterday? my friend just came to me with these same talking points like 20 minutes ago. i dont understand what "more people across the nation voted X instead of Y" means in a direct election like this other than being a neat little factoid, since each state votes for their own representation

It's more like, "Wow things are really disproportional".

Over 4,000,000 people voted for O'Rourke and Nelson and watched them lose yesterday. That's more than what voted for Matt Rosendale (203k), Kevin Cramer (179k), Martha McSally (850k), Josh Hawley (1.25M), and Marsha Blackburn (1.22M) to win combined.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

Imagine relying on your average person to elect good leaders through voting.

imagine thinking you would get a better result by preventing people from voting and making some peoples' votes worth less
---

fenderbender321 posted...

averagejoel posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

Imagine relying on your average person to elect good leaders through voting.

imagine thinking you would get a better result by preventing people from voting and making some peoples' votes worth less

I agree. It makes no difference.

it absolutely does make a difference
---

A_Good_Boy posted...

_B0xxY2J0sHBK__ posted...

Solar_Crimson posted...

_B0xxY2J0sHBK__ posted...

It's not empty landmasses. It's the widest amount of demographies

You mean the inner cities?

No. I mean I'd rather someone who appeals to inner city, suburbia, rural areas, retirees, etc be elected because they would be campaigning with the most people in mind which benefits more people. I mean, why should we elect someone who ignores a big demographic?

Doesn't the person with the most votes imply that person was most successful at appealing to the widest demographic of people?

You should look into the tyranny of the majority. What if all politicians had exclusively focused on white people in order to get the majority of the vote. Popular vote is a horrible way to measure representation among diverse demographics and representation for minorities.

Not saying there's a good balance in today's system tho. Obviously not.
---

A_Good_Boy posted...

_B0xxY2J0sHBK__ posted...

Solar_Crimson posted...

_B0xxY2J0sHBK__ posted...

It's not empty landmasses. It's the widest amount of demographies

You mean the inner cities?

No. I mean I'd rather someone who appeals to inner city, suburbia, rural areas, retirees, etc be elected because they would be campaigning with the most people in mind which benefits more people. I mean, why should we elect someone who ignores a big demographic?

Doesn't the person with the most votes imply that person was most successful at appealing to the widest demographic of people?

No, it means they won 2 or three big states and forgot about the "flyovers"
---

fenderbender321 posted...

I wonder how many people look at election results and claim "If the election were decided by popular vote, ________ would have won!" Even though there's no way to know who would have won considering that the candidates would have campaigned much differently.

It's like saying "If it were illegal to throw forward passes in football, your team would have lost!" It's like....no...I'm pretty sure NE wouldn't have Tom Brady as their QB if it were illegal to throw forward passes.

I mean, we can analyze campaigning the way it currently is by just disentangling two aspects of the electoral college. Our presidential electoral system is really made up of two parts: the winner takes all aspect for states and the actual apportionment we use.

Most people when they complain about the electoral college are complaining about the apportionment, and that's the main thing counter arguments such as "Well then everyone will spend time in NY, California, etc." If you look at 2016, 94% of presidential campaign events happened in 12 states,

Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Michigan, Iowa, New Hampshire, Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Arizona.

Now when we rank states by electoral votes/voting eligible population, here are where those states rank:

50th, 49th, 48th, 47th, 44th, 43rd, 23rd, 10th, 38th,17th, 32nd, 34th. (Which averages to 36.25)

You can see from this that candidates are already campaigning with little to no regard towards apportionment. They're going to some of the WORST states from a number of voters you need to win electoral votes perspective.

Why is that? Well, it's because those states are battleground swing states where campaigning can actually impact the outcome because there are more people to swing the minds of/get out your support there. What would we expect in a popular vote system? Basically more of that. It wouldn't be worth it for a Democrats to spend all of their time in California and New York, because that's not where they need to gin up support.
---

Anteaterking posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

I wonder how many people look at election results and claim "If the election were decided by popular vote, ________ would have won!" Even though there's no way to know who would have won considering that the candidates would have campaigned much differently.

It's like saying "If it were illegal to throw forward passes in football, your team would have lost!" It's like....no...I'm pretty sure NE wouldn't have Tom Brady as their QB if it were illegal to throw forward passes.

I mean, we can analyze campaigning the way it currently is by just disentangling two aspects of the electoral college. Our presidential electoral system is really made up of two parts: the winner takes all aspect for states and the actual apportionment we use.

Most people when they complain about the electoral college are complaining about the apportionment, and that's the main thing counter arguments such as "Well then everyone will spend time in NY, California, etc." If you look at 2016, 94% of presidential campaign events happened in 12 states,

Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Michigan, Iowa, New Hampshire, Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Arizona.

Now when we rank states by electoral votes/voting eligible population, here are where those states rank:

50th, 49th, 48th, 47th, 44th, 43rd, 23rd, 10th, 38th,17th, 32nd, 34th. (Which averages to 36.25)

You can see from this that candidates are already campaigning with little to no regard towards apportionment. They're going to some of the WORST states from a number of voters you need to win electoral votes perspective.

Why is that? Well, it's because those states are battleground swing states where campaigning can actually impact the outcome because there are more people to swing the minds of/get out your support there. What would we expect in a popular vote system? Basically more of that. It wouldn't be worth it for a Democrats to spend all of their time in California and New York, because that's not where they need to gin up support.

It's not that. The big states are indoctrination centers whether Texas or California. Smaller states have open minds. They tend to be smarter for that reason and I'm ok with their vote mattering more
---

_B0xxY2J0sHBK__ posted...

The big states are indoctrination centers whether Texas or California. Smaller states have open minds

Smaller states include Vermont, the Dakotas, Delaware, Rhode Island, Hawaii... All manner of deep blue or deep red states.
---

Antifar posted...

_B0xxY2J0sHBK__ posted...

The big states are indoctrination centers whether Texas or California. Smaller states have open minds

Smaller states include Vermont, the Dakotas, Delaware, Rhode Island, Hawaii... All manner of deep blue or deep red states.

Fair enough. I guess I really meant purple states, since for whatever reason they avoided being indoctrinated, they are easier to trust
---