There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

YSK most US states assign their electoral college votes by the state's popular vote

I’ve seen several people claim that their state’s vote for the US presidential election doesn’t matter because their district is gerrymandered, which does not matter for most states.

Most states use the state’s popular vote to determine who the entire state’s electoral college votes go to. No matter how gerrymandered your district is, every individual vote matters for assigning the electoral vote.* [ETA: Nearly] Every single district in a state could go red but the state goes blue for president because of the popular vote.

*Maine and Nebraska are the notable differences who allot individual electors based on the popular vote within their congressional districts and the overall popular vote. It’s possible there are other exceptions and I’m sure commenters will happily point them out.

Edit: added strikethrough to my last statement because now I have confirmed it.

Of the 50 states, all but two award all of their presidential electors to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote in the state (Maine and Nebraska each award two of their electors to the candidate who wins a plurality of the statewide vote; the remaining electors are allocated to the winners of the plurality vote in the states’ congressional districts). (source)

roscoe ,

Even in Maine and Nebraska, two of their electrical votes are statewide just some are allocated to CDs. A state’s electrical votes are determined by their total number of senators and representatives. The ones that correspond to the two senators are statewide.

wetnoodle ,
@wetnoodle@sopuli.xyz avatar

The electoral college can lick my rectum polished

AFKBRBChocolate ,

But if you live in a state that is overwhelmingly one party, your states votes are going to go to that candidate. I live in California, and there not much chance that any California delegates are going to go to Trump. True, the districts didn’t matter for the EC votes, but that doesn’t mean everyone’s vote counts the same.

Also worth mentioning that the number of votes each state gets is based on very outdated logic.

It would be different if there were no EC and it was decided based on the national popular vote.

Buelldozer ,
@Buelldozer@lemmy.today avatar

Also worth mentioning that the number of votes each state gets is based on very outdated logic.

The logic is basically sound but we borked the shit out of the system with the Re-Apportionment Act of 1929.

That needs to repealed / replaced / updated with something like the Wyoming Rule.

Reyali OP ,

True, some states are too extreme to ever flip. Then other states like Texas or North Carolina are perceived as firmly in one camp, but they might not be if everyone actually voted.

reddig33 ,

You should know the Electoral College is ridiculous and should be abolished.

Reyali OP ,

I don’t disagree, but it’s the system we have and I want to ensure people aren’t disenfranchising themselves in states that could swing the opposite way if everyone actually voted.

Broken_Monitor ,

YSK the electoral college can get fucked.

YeetPics ,

Doesn’t that mean the states are just gerrymandered voting districts?

Only way I can parse nominees winning while earning fewer popular votes than their peers… cough (Republicans)

lordnikon ,

also gerrymandering only counts for the house not the senate and president on a national level. plus you have tons of non party votes at the local level

Reyali OP ,

You could look at it that way. I think gerrymandering specifically refers to lines being drawn specifically to create advantage or disadvantage in voting though, and we don’t move state lines that way. So it’s more just like bad district allocation?

tiredofsametab ,

Maine and Nebraska are the notable differences who allot individual electors based on the popular vote within their congressional districts and the overall popular vote. It’s possible there are other exceptions and I’m sure commenters will happily point them out.

I mean, this just says "I didn't research things and you shouldn't take what I say seriously" to me.

HatchetHaro ,
@HatchetHaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

I dunno, you haven’t even pointed anything out yet.

tiredofsametab ,

Generally, the person stating a claim is the one that needs to substantiate that claim. If someone makes a post and then says in their own post "I'm probably not right but I can't be bothered to check yet am still going to post anyway", that strikes me as lazy at best and vain or shady at worst.

Reyali OP , (edited )

It means I didn’t go look at the laws of 50 different states, correct. Doesn’t mean I didn’t do any research at all; I did confirm for multiple states where I heard people saying this (OH, NC, and TX) and I confirmed that only those two states allocate votes based on districts while all others allocate all voters to one candidate. Maybe there’s some other method out there other than district-driven or popular vote–driven; I’m holding space that I could be unaware of something rather than trying to claim I know everything.

tiredofsametab ,

I took it to mean "I don't know if this is actually true or not, but I'm going to post it anyway" which is exactly where tons of quickly-spreading misinformation comes from and how it gets passed on.

Specifically, the claim that it's the popular vote overall seems off to me, though I don't currently have time to look into it (I did some quick googling but did not get a conclusive answer). What I mean to say is that, yes, all of the electoral votes are allocated to whomever is considered a winner and it is not proportional (except in two states). I was under the impression, however, that it went by districts so whomever won the most districts got the full share of votes (i.e. not the overall statewide popular vote).

Reyali OP ,

And what you’re saying now is, “What you said doesn’t align to what I think, so I’m sure you’re wrong.”

So here’s proof:

Of the 50 states, all but two award all of their presidential electors to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote in the state (Maine and Nebraska each award two of their electors to the candidate who wins a plurality of the statewide vote; the remaining electors are allocated to the winners of the plurality vote in the states’ congressional districts). (source)

Today ,

It creates maps like this that make people stay home because they believe their vote doesn’t count.

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/48fa887a-8210-4036-8543-3c6c8c446b64.png

atx_aquarian , (edited )
@atx_aquarian@lemmy.world avatar

For me, it’s helpful to remember what the underlying reality is.

https://external-preview.redd.it/SzOGqTzYGcXUxzy2PbOIbK-WYT1dhXyYAk2w-v7jNBQ.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=a1554501ed0d5f23662b4d186c0c0ba1f8b2f2c4

Skewed for population and colored on a red-blue scale to reflect vote mix.

When those votes are counted, the resulting electoral votes align to those votes, which results in maps like what you showed. When strategists tune their messages to target demographics they can divide (e.g., rural vs. urban), they’re playing a game of inches and shades on this map of purple goo, and that’s still the reality behind the ultimate electoral vote, even if it doesn’t feel like it.

Keep voting, everyone!

edits: So much autocorrect.

alilbee ,

Hey, that’s a neat image. I’ve seen other ways of visualizing the popular vote on a map but this one looks wonky as hell and I like it.

atx_aquarian ,
@atx_aquarian@lemmy.world avatar

Data can be beautiful. I just found a similar but maybe clearer example from 2016 with a nice write-up about it.

Teaser from that article: https://www.maproomblog.com/xq/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016-election-cartogram-hennig-1200x885.jpg

I think the common term for these is “cartogram”.

lordnikon ,

yeah it’s almost like land can’t vote just people

Carighan ,
@Carighan@lemmy.world avatar

I mean to be fair, Texas is a scary thought. It would make me stay home, too. 😜

Today ,

I live in a blue zone and most reds i interact with are fairly normalish. They’re lake people or church people or those guys that always have a joke or funny story.

Reyali OP , (edited )

That’s precisely what prompted this post: conversations with friends in Texas who said their presidential vote didn’t count because of gerrymandering.

I agree districts are fucked, but that doesn’t affect the electoral college outcome. Texas is leaning more blue every year and getting everyone who feels like their vote doesn’t matter out and voting anyway is the first step to changing it. (One example source

The state has 30 million people. Of those, 8M are in the Dallas area, 7.5M are in the Houston area, and about 5M between San Antonio and Austin. That means over 20 million of the state residents live in one of the 4 largest metro areas which are all majority blue.

Yet only 11M voted in 2020. National average turnout in the 2020 election was 66% but Texas was less than 40%, and it’s because of the exact sentiment you called out.

I’m from Texas (but don’t live there now) and I know how disheartening the voting season always felt. I want to fight the perception I’ve heard now from multiple people in Texas that their vote for president doesn’t mean anything, because it absolutely could if everyone gets out to vote.

TexasDrunk ,

Yep. It creates voter apathy in statewide races. Texas is in the top 10 lowest in voter turnout. A lot of liberal folks don’t vote due to gerrymandering and due to shit like the state meddling in Harris county and the small number of voting locations in big blue areas.

Reyali OP ,

Exactly what I’m trying to help counter! In just 24 hours I heard two people I know from Texas mention that the presidential vote was affected by gerrymandering. I did my research to confirm that was wrong and have been trying to help fix that false belief since then.

Rhynoplaz ,

Not to nitpick, because I completely support what you’re saying, (EVERYBODY VOTE!!!) but, I don’t think it’s mathematically possible for EVERY district to go red and the electorals go blue.

alvvayson ,

He should have said almost every.

But thanks for pointing out the mathematical truth ☝️

Cuberoot ,

Not nationally, but because Maine uses both Instant runoff voting for presidential elections, and the Congressional district method of assigning electors, it’s mathematically possibly for Maine to split its electors 2-2. eg, the Republican wins both districts individually, while the Democrat wins statewide. Not this year though – needs a competitive 3-way race so the runoffs matter.

Reyali OP ,

Ok, fair point, lol.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •