Current Events > Wait, there's more republicans than democrats in the US?

(+) Yeah! (+)

This map makes it look like theres far more on the right than the left, is that true?

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/2/2/AAfLm4AACzcu.jpg

Land isn't people

That's not how that works

Irony posted...

That's not how that works

Oh? How does it work then?

Im not being dense, I legitimately dont know. Ive never participated in politics

_HayleyWilliams posted...

Land isn't people

So are there more democrats or republicans?

MarveI posted...

So are there more democrats or republicans?

I will take things easily Googled for $100 please.

MarveI posted...

So are there more democrats or republicans?

I dunno but they routinely win the popular vote by several million

It's hard to tell because there are plenty of both that don't vote. There are a huge chunk of independents as well as "independents" but they only ever vote for one party. Just going by voting numbers isn't really accurate. Because of the electoral college there are only a dozen or so states that really matter. Most states go to the same side every time so it's irrelevant whether most people in them actually vote or not.

A plurality of Americans consider themselves independents, with independents historically leaning more to the left (however that hasnt been the case the last few months)

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

damn somewhere i missed where jersey conquered philadelphia

Republicans make up less than 35% of people in the US. The only reasons they win are because people on the left and middle don't vote in as high of volumes and because the electoral college is set up so that they can pick the winners against the collective will of the people.

George Bush is the only Republican of the last three decades who rightfully should have been president. And even that's debatable since it was only when he was up for reelection that he got the vote. He should have lost to Al Gore.

The only reason the electoral college exists is to protect private interests.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/3/2/AAX2_KAACzc4.jpg

There are 30 cities in the US that individually have more people than the state of Wyoming

According to wiki, democrats have it by 6%
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/3/7/AAfLm4AACzc9.jpg

Those kinds of maps are misleading. A lot of the space in a lot of those red states have barely any people.

This is the state of education in this country

The United States is a confederacy of states.

The Senate represents states. A terrirtory upon gaining statehood and entrance into the union is guaranteed two seats in Senate regardless of population. In the past, senators were not chosen by direct elections; rather, the states' legislatures and governors selected federal senators.

The House is the so called "people's house" as it more closely represents the persons of congressional districts within states. Districts represent persons but the formula is weird plus the size of the house is capped. So some congressional districts represent more people then others.Yet note, the main determining factor here is the districts exists within state borders and do not cross state borders. This means congress persons represents persons within states and not the population of the United States at large. Even the lower house is built around the federal government representing state interests.

The electoral college is a slate of electors that vote to pick the the president. Electors represent states but are selected by, typically, a winner take all model tied to a state election. States are all guaranteed a minimum of three electors based on being members of the union -- based on all states having two senators and, at minimum, one house member. The formula is a mix of variables to represent the the relative population size of the state plus the bargain that all states are equally important by virtue of statehood.

The correct answer is the government represents the land and the people on those lands. The system favors the people over the land but not overwhelmingly so. In eras where political parties lack clear dominance over one another or lack coalitions that sufficiently balance geography/people, you wind up with electoral maps like you shared.

Note. I brought up political parties at the end. The structure of the government is agnostic to parties. Party structures are not government structures per say, they are superstructures built onto but existing separate from the government. The closest you'll get to parties in the Constitution is the first amendment which ensures peoples can freely assemble, associate, and petition the government. Parties sometimes mess with the underlying structure of the government thereby warping its operations.

I am not defending the system or criticizing it with this post. I providing a well informed explanation but not applying any sort of normative judgements.

I always encourage others to read about the Articles of Confederation, the Federalist Papers, and the Great Compromise in these sorts of topics.

UnholyMudcrab posted...

This is the state of education in this country

i'm kinda not sure if this is serious or not <_<

only 1/3 of the US is republican but they buy into the puppet show hook line and sinker whereas many democrats are jaded and realize its all a bullshit mirage to make people think their vote can make a difference when really it cant

so naturally, almost all republicans turn out to vote while many democrats just skip it

utah and massachusetts also seem slimmer

MC_BatCommander posted...

Those kinds of maps are misleading. A lot of the space in a lot of those red states have barely any people.

This. Also plenty of red states are actively trying to suppress voters so it's nearly impossible to get an accurate voter demographic from them. Some places like Texas, for example, may be a lot closer to being purple than we think.

Population is what matters tc, not surface area.

Actually, wasn't that something of a popular argument a while back? Was it @Caution999 pushing it?
Jesus Christ, what a dumb time to be alive.

Guide posted...

Population is what matters tc, not surface area.

Actually, wasn't that something of a popular argument a while back? Was it Caution999 pushing it?
Jesus Christ, what a dumb time to be alive.

Trump supporters have been pushing it since 2016. They have a massive chip on their shoulder about that whole popular vote thing.

Popular is correlative but not predictive of presidential election outcomes. In most cases, the person that wins the popular vote also happens to win the most electors, but only the latter matters.

The common issue I see online is folks deliberately or ignorantly construing metrics of different kinds as the same in terms of elections.

The popular vote is meaningless* in determining the president. Presidential elections are not a singular, nationwide election. The US is not a unitary state nor or our federal elections for any offices. The truth of the matter is federal general elections should be viewed as 50 separate elections that combine to form the federal government.

Say X won the popular vote for president. It is meaningless if X did not win enough states.

*caveat - meaningless insofar as determining who takes office. Popular vote is very meaningful in terms of politics and power.

My take opinion ahead:

In my assessment the political pundit or advisor that emphasizes the popular vote to their audience or candidate is doing so at a grave disservice. The goal of an election is to win and take office. The only thing that matters for a presidential election is winning enough states and their electors. Ideally, you do that by as large a margin as possible and win the popular vote by as large a margin as possible, but what matters most is winning electors. The system is what it is. You have to win the game in front of you within that games rules. You can only change the rules if you win.

You can't show up to game night to play Monopoly and then get mad you lost because you played by the rules of Candyland all night long.