Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Not when they have the Electoral College bullshit upending every election in favor of a minority.
If this is true how to democrats win elections?
Well, it takes a bigger portion of voters voting blue just to reach equilibrium, which then results in a few swing states because that's the stupid system they have. The whole purpose is to dilute the blue vote so Republicans can have a coin flip chance. So whoever wins the swing states instead of the popular vote wins the election. One example is Trump vs Clinton. Technically, Clinton won the popular vote but not the electorate.
collapsed inline media
Source
So, really, it's not "why are Dems winning elections?" but "why are Reps winning them at all?"
In the case of this election. The Republicans won the popular vote, so by your logic they should have won this year anyways.
Even so, if you look at voting distribution on a US map. Densely populated urban centers vote blue and there are large swathes of land that vote red. Do you propose that the people who live in these densely populated areas should have the power to choose the president every election?
In my view, the fact that the elections are close and both parties win is evidence that the system works.
They had a higher probability of winning and they took full advantage of that, yes.
Yes. That's how it's done in all other modern democracies that I know of including my own. I don't understand this idea that population density must result in devaluing one's vote. It's punishing the cities for existing. That just because you live in the city your power should be diminished because other people chose to live in Bumbuck, Iowa. Like, what does your residence have to do with anything? It's a foreign concept to me. Like, you're not even hurting, you're just upset that your views aren't those of the nation.
Not to mention that's a curious mindset to have. It implies that people in the city can't be trusted to decide an election despite their candidates being great. Coincidentally, most of the people in the cities are POC and I find that to be more than a coincidence. I'm inclined to think it's yet another tool used to disenfranchise Black voters and suppress minorities given the US's notoriously racist history. We even got threads on this site expressing how that fixation on race makes us foreigners uncomfortable.
Yes, it works great in favor of Republicans by tipping the scale. I'm surprised you replied with that given how I just explained that it's a rigged system and you said, yes it's wonderful...
What you are proposing gives complete power of the elections to small spheres of influence in the US. Candidates only have to appease to people who live in the cities to win. I don't see how this can be seen as a good thing. The current system forces candidates to get both the rural and urban residents' votes to win.
collapsed inline media
The current system forces the candidates to appeal to a number of states artificially. How is that any better? Lol It doesn't even do what you claim it does.
And also, most of those red areas on the map are empty, as you said. Why bother saying it's empty when it's convenient only to present a fully red map as if it means anything?
Lastly, cite your sources, please. We have no idea where you got that image.
Are you referring to the swing states? They have to appeal to those states because they already have the other states locked in, but they can't just ignore the places they usually get votes each election either. Part of the reason the Republicans won the popular vote this year is because many counties flipped from Democrat to Republican. They aren't appealing to swing states artificially, they are trying to win the votes of a population that votes either direction and isn't practically a guarantee.
Those red areas are in fact not empty, there are people who live in those regions. That map was made by a redditor here : https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/s/6914AUEoEf. When I initially saw the post (a few years ago), I verified the information presented at that time. You are of course free to double check.
We're not talking about anything else.
Candidates regularly ignore states while campaigning. I know for a fact that happened last year with both Trump and Harris. They do know their states are locked in.
I'm saying the swing states are created artificially to create a close race. It wouldn't be close otherwise and instead decidedly blue if it were a fairer system that doesn't devalue people's votes arbitrarily.
And also, your map needs population density to be meaningful. And a better source.
It's hyperbole. Their populations are peanuts to the cities, which is why we weed the population density so you can stop pointing at the map and be like "see all this red land??" and I stop internally screaming.
swing states are the result of the voting populace going 50/50 on what party they vote for. One doesn't create a swing state.
I see where you're coming from. Popular vote wins the election, easy enough. People don't vote like that. I don't understand why you are refusing to see the other perspective.
People with similar ideologies clump together. Democrats are a majority in the US, and the greater share of which live very close to one another in select cities across the country. What you are saying is that only what they think matters and they will always get their way because there is more of them.
People who live in the city live very different lives and have different concerns than people live in rural areas. I don't necessarily think it is okay for one group to have all the power, especially since they are so out of touch with one another.
An election system should be consistent and maintain a competitive election, and should not succumb to mass politics or control from people in power.
Yes, by tipping the voting base to go 50/50. It's literally like 60/40 if the electoral college is removed, and that's my entire point. I'm not here to argue the hows and whys about why it is that way. Voter disenfranchisement is my main point and that's my only point.
Because I know the other perspective and it's a load of bullshit. Here, all of this:
All of it is apologetic bullshit and an excuse for the right wing to hinder and diminish other people's rights to vote, as they always do. The only time location actually matters (and should matter) is whether you're voting from abroad or not. That's how we do it and that's how everyone I know does it... except for the US because of its bullshit conservative mental gymnastics, as always.
I've never in my life seen a more out of touch party than the Conservatives, tbh. Being "out of touch" is not a strong argument, and doubly so in today's American political circus.
Pfft. No. That honestly sounds like you have an agenda in your mind that somehow, and for some reason, must give special concessions to the lesser party so that you have a minority rule at the expense of people's voting rights and dignity. That's evil and that's not democratic in the way that aligns with most people's values.
You don't appear to understand how the electoral college works. Each state has electors who vote on behalf of the citizenry. These electors always go with the populace. So essentially popular vote applies to win the electoral votes of a state. Some states do winner take all, some split the electoral votes proportional to how the populace voted. A state that Is 50/50 doesn't become 60/40 if the electoral college is removed. People vote how they vote and that's that.
I don't mean out of touch in the traditional sense. I mean the rural residents and urban residents are out of touch with each other, meaning they live very different lives.
I have an agenda in mind? You are quite literally advocating for single-party dominance, and all they need to do to is maintain control over their already established small spheres of influence in large cities. Appeal to a couple local politicians and their citizens, maintain power, leave the rest of the country in ruin.
It's true I don't know the details because of being a foreigner and all, but I have seen its grander effects on the election results and that's all that matters. Like I said, "I’m not here to argue the hows and whys. Voter disenfranchisement is my main point and that’s my only point."
And so what? What does that have to do with the elections and the presidency? Why is that ever relevant? And why is that used as part of having to decide how much a vote is worth?
I mean, if by "different lives" you mean different realities with the right skewing towards conspiracy, then yes, I wholeheartedly agree that it matters. Q Anon, JFK revival parade, the Deep State and Hillary Clinton/pizza gate. Holy crap. I don't think pandering to them electorally is the right call. I mean, they promoted and elected convicted felon Trump twice and pushed your country squarely into plutocracy leaning towards kleptocracy.
What, you think the left is one single homogeneous group? I was about to say you're on Lemmy, you should know better, but I see your account is only 1 month old. Also, consider the state of the Overton window in the US before you accuse anyone of such things: Your left is my right and your right does not exist here because it's a lil' bit crazy.
As opposed to the Republican presidents who have never ever done that? What is happening now with your Cheeto in Charge? And Bush? And Regan? Hello?