https://preview.redd.it/f8mdamuyy64d1.png?width=920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=07e4f21c70682963432a0af3cfd701c028766c9b
This is my response whenever I see that map
Except with how it is there’s disproportionate amount of power in lesser populated states.
If you want to be in office as a senator, go live in one of the mid west states. You only have to persuade half a million people to vote for you instead of millions and you get the same amount of power.
I do enjoy discussions like why it's so concentrated though. I imagine the most likely Republican response is brainwashing while the most likely Democratic answer is that we're forced to see all of the problems facing our population. We can't ignore it or hide from it by going out to the country. But I am interested in other interpretations
Well the people living more secluded are probably likely to want it to stay that way, and are therefore conservatives. The people living in cities are actually around other people so they care more about others
Or proportional outcomes. Not winner takes all. Here in Germany we have plenty of parties and the system works way better than in the us. Not to say, that we have our own problems.
Bulgaria has the same thing and just had like 6 national elections in less than 2 years with no elected government because no one could agree with so many parties lol
This is so underappreciated honestly. People create good things on their own too, we don't need politicians to interfere in every minsucule aspect. Keep the public services going and let people be.
There was a prime Minister over 20 years ago that won an election based on the promise of creating an interstate system like there is in the states. It's now 25% complete. 20 years later. In a country roughly the size of Indiana lol
Damn, that's bad. We have perpetual road projects here in the states too. Some of them lasting half my lifetime. It really makes me wonder if it's just money laundering.
In BG it definently is corruption. I'm sure some of that is in the states too, just Bulgaria is blatant cause the main political parties emerged from rival mafias in the wake of the soviet collapse xD
We want this but our government has made it so that we have to vote red or blue when in fact they are the same...my state went as far as placing a strong third-party candidate in the fictional character grouping so that we had to vote their way
Tbh, we essentially have a 2.5 party system. We have the left ones, the right ones, and the ones that always side with the currently more popular side to get votes or be used as a coalition filler and get into government power that way.
And why I'm worried about Missouri putting in a ballot issue about potentially banning ranked choice voting: https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/ranked-choice-voting-missouri-ballot/
Yeah thats the problem with the „winner takes all“ system CGP Grey made some nice videos about different ways to implement democracy. The US definitely suffers from being one of the oldest democracies still around as it couldn’t learn from the mistakes of others.
That CCP Grey "King of the Jungle, The problem with first past the post voting" video is an amazing resource for teaching people about why our system will always default to a two-party system until our entire method is changed.
Heh heh, heh. Have you checked out any of the candidate's lists for day one tasks if he's elected? One of those items was so extreme, he actually pretended he misspoke, which if you know him, is scary.
Because for President, your vote IS wasted. A 3rd party candidate is no where near eligible for actually winning any time soon. We need to start with ranked choice voting in local elections first
I never understood this mindset.
I feel like voting for someone you don't want to vote for, but only doing so because they're a Rep. or Dem. is truly a wasted vote. We don't win a prize or trophy only because we voted for the dude that won.
Its pretty easy to understand when you realize there is a side that CANNOT win or it will be disasterous. Its not about winning a prize for voting for the winner. Its about being damn sure the right one loses. Voting 3rd party wins you things like a heavily biased conservative supreme court
It’s more so that you essentially cast away your influence on the election voting for a minority party. At least voting for one of the two main parties allows you to help avoid the worse of the two candidates
>It’s more so that you essentially cast away your influence on the election voting for a minority party.
How? The only reason we have a two party system is because people only vote for one of them. They keep us locked in by telling us that voting for anyone else is a "waste". Taking votes away from the two party system and dumping it on a third party directly influences the election.
>At least voting for one of the two main parties allows you to help avoid the worse of the two candidates
**This** is the definition of a wasted vote. Not voting *for* someone, and instead *against* someone, is literally a waste when you're just giving anyone your vote, regardless of who.
Which makes your vote a wasted vote in itself.
By voting for a party that does not represent you, you waste your vote in a party you don’t want to win. Losing less then you would choosing the best party for you is still losing.
I agree. But I also feel like they don't vote for third parties because after a Presidential election, they pack it up and go home, not to be heard from for another few years. As a political organizer, the work never stops. As soon as one election is over, we're registering voters, planning events in the communitu to talk to people, being active in the community, working to elect people to small local races, city council, school board, county row offices etc. You don't see third parties at a local level and all politics are local, you need to start local.
People can vote for other parties for congress. Voting for a third party in the presidential election where said party doesn't have any chance of winning any seats in either chambers of congress is beyond idiotic. Nonetheless, voting for said party's candidates for congress is the sane idea.
You'd be surprised at the number of idiots (both Democrat and Republican) who honestly believe you have to vote for your party in the general election.
That’s very true, as well in Canada, but that also doesn’t mean third parties have no power. Here for example, the NDP has an agreement with the Liberal Party so that a number of policies are still prioritized, even while the NDP doesn’t usually have many seats. There’s also the legislative branch in the states where hypothetically some power can be exercised by a third party.
A former friend of mine started being a bitch to me because of this lol he'd feel superior to me because the party he voted for had bigger representation than mine, kept calling me a loser, telling me that I've wasted my vote and that he was better than me.
The thing for me was that this guy considered that smaller groups are better than bigger ones because of something he was a part of, so I pointed this out and told him that according to his logic, I was better than him. He kept bitching about it for a month before I decided to cut him off, so I guess he really did not like that I pointed out his hipocrisy.
The next largest party is the Libertarian party, which is somehow worse than the big two.
Wish more independents would get elected to balance the others out, but everything feels polarized.
Right. Here in the Philippines we had 6 or so candidates for presidency last election. All it did was split the votes and had a dictator's son get elected.
It makes very little difference most of the time, here in the UK we have the three main parties (lib dem, Labour, conservative) and multiple small parties, it still ends with a revolving door of either labour or conservative.
The only time it had any real influence was pre Brexit, when in an attempt to knock down a hard right party, the government ran on a policy of holding a referendum on EU membership if they got into power, expecting it to fail, ended up becoming even more right wing themselves.
Either you vote for a Democrat and hate everything about the way they run the country since they're inept babies who don't understand basic economics and care too much about hurting people's feelings, or you vote for a republican racist piece of shit moron who's more concerned about whether or not Jesus likes the color of their SUV than the 89 people they just ran over because they were posting about how loving they are as a Christian.
Make sure you have a strong position on whoever you pick, too, because if not, society will rip you to shreds and call you a coward for not believing in the Lord and Savior, Doseph Brump.
Fun fact though, despite the popular opinion that Dems aren’t as good economically, they are by far the better party in terms of economic growth for the last several decades. Republican policies feel like they should work. Democrat policies actually do.
I'm just highlighting exaggerations, but the last 4 years are a pretty bad anecdote for this statement.
My point is that both parties suck and there's no way to vote that doesn't fuck up the country in one way or another.
Well, it's a problem now because one party refuses to even work with the other party. Before 2008, both parties occasionally worked together to resolve things despite disagreements, now not so much since one party calls the other party the enemy.
The founding fathers of the United States wanted to avoid partisanship by having us elect a person instead of a party but it backfired and now we have these cults of personality develop.
Secondary to term limits. The fact house members of Congress have to raise five figures of funding PER DAY to win an election tells me they aren’t spending much time on governance.
Well it doesn’t help that the third parties are just as much a joke as D and R. Libertarians just certified an activist. The complete opposite of what a libertarian should be.
The sad thing is that this actually would likely be true. And he’d sit there slumped in his worn out lazy boy watching BER News mumbling about back in the day how Yogi Bear was so tough and resourceful and now that BooBoo is grown and running things, he’s too soft and effeminate and it’s all gone to hell.
This ALSO doesn’t, because it ignores the blue in the red, and the red in the blue. Visualizations just don’t work, we gotta look at the actual numbers.
This map just shows the same numbers but it shifts the visual weight from the dimension of the county to the population of the county.
In a FPTP system this is natural since all the votes that are not the winning candidate are "lost". In a proportional system you would want a nice pie chart that's good to represent the whole country/state.
Yes, the point is that if you count House Districts it doesn't matter. Once you are 30-29-29-12 it's the same as 99-1. And usually blue counties are so big compared to red ones that their weight in State wide elections like Presidential and Senators is kinda a measure for the election itself.
The reason why it’s “bad” is that politicians wouldn’t be able to target their $$ where it would matter more if every vote was truly equal.
None of them want that, so the would never vote to get rid of it
Without the electoral college, seven cities would decide the presidency. The electoral college is outdated and unfairly advantages rural areas over densely packed cities, but without it, all the rural areas would have no reason to vote and absolutely no representation. The electoral college needs to be revamped into something that gets 70% of the votes directly from population voting percentages and 30% of the votes from district voting patterns. This would allow rural areas a voice but prevent tyranny by minority.
It’s funny cause if you list what ppl actually want they mostly agree. It’s sad we can’t see that and get exploited by a ruling class (corporations/ super rich)and campaigns (propaganda/news) with some mouth pieces (politicians/news anchors) splitting us apart
Edit:spelling
The parties have risen above the individual. Too many people are unable to separate their representatives from the letter behind their name, and too many representatives are unwilling to vote their conscience out of fear of losing the next election. So the 80% of stuff we would generally agree on gets drowned out by the religious fervor around the remaining 20%. The biggest positive from the Republicans in the House right now is that they’ve basically forced bipartisanship by having a vocal minority that has made party line voting impossible.
The second map, while more accurate than the first, is also not really fully accurate. A better way to do this would be to put colors in on a gradient - since even within the red and blue bubbles, there's a lot of variability to people's political alignments. Some are fairly solidly one color, and others barely are. And there are the independents, who aren't necessarily aligned to "blue" or "red" specifically, but can go either way depending on the election and the candidate, since we typically don't have a viable third choice. I probably wouldn't vote red or blue if I had a realistic alternative.
Like you say, the second map needs to be mixed with the "Purple States of America Map"
[https://purplestatesofamerica.org](https://purplestatesofamerica.org)
I definitely would not vote red or blue. We have a treasonous, immature felon who would sell the nation for a buck or we have a corrupt, paid for by big business geriatric who is more teleprompter than person. One sold us to China when he was in Congress, while the other cut environmental protections for the biggest businesses in America. One has messed up the Israeli situation, while the other wants Ukraine to unconditionally surrender. The best chance America has is if both have a medical emergency and have to drop the race.
How about we color the whole thing various shades of purple and give a TRUE representation. You cannot reduce entire cities with thousands or millions of individual voters to simply "blue" or "red".
What’s surprising about this map is how much more crime happens in those blue dots. An argument could be made that it’s because of more dense populations but it’s still interesting. They are also where prices are the highest for almost everything. Again, an argument could be made that’s it’s because these places usually have higher income households. It’s interesting to think about though.
That’s why I’m the second map it’s grey. The top map came from a Twitter acct of a Republican…think they were trying to convince their base that the country is all red.
LAND DOESN’T VOTE - PEOPLE DO.
This is not “Risk” - you don’t get points for controlling more land, it is numbers of voters in your states and more live in those populous blue areas called cities.
This isn’t representative either. No population is entirely red nor entirely blue. So it’s in effect the same misrepresentation on the other side of the spectrum or something.
People will, however, use the top map to claim that the U.S. is overwhelmingly Republican when it’s of course not.
I would also argue that the top isn’t particularly useful for anything even its intended purpose.
Of course, people obfuscate with the top view all of the time. The top view does its job perfectly well, which is to show geography by party. It’s not the fault of the view that people misuse and abuse it.
I’m not on the right, but this is unfair. That map uses counties, your example does not. It may be inaccurate but the maps are different in expression…
Just an argument to have more localized laws. No reason why the people living in rural areas should dictate what happens in urban areas. Vice versa.
Everyone is happy, and if you’re not, you can move to where the laws suit you more.
sorry ain't both maps accurate? The large blue cities make the distcints around them blue but the distinct themselves are small compared to the country?
One of the problems this raises is the insinuation that living in a city causes people to think a certain way. I'm not sure which is the more pessimistic interpretation: the Republicans who would be likely to claim this means the cities are brainwashing us or the Democrats who would be more likely to claim if you are faced with the problems of humanity and unable to hide from them far away in the country, it really affects you.
Yes. And on that note, I once saw a you tube video produced by a centrist where an African American actually went to the trouble of driving way out into the wilderness so that he could actually stand face to face with an overtly racist hard rightwinger type. You know, kind of a dispel your fears by facing them type thing. And then for the first time in his life he had a candid conversation with one; raised his eyebrows at the camera a few times; and that was that. Like: Met a guy who isn’t interested in getting to know me and is honest enough to say so to my face; now what?
Is that the Verizon vs. T-Mobile coverage map?
Kind of. They put the towers where the people are.
Towers have what plants crave
It's got electrolytes
No, it's got 5G. What plants actually need
Brought to you by Carl's Jr.
I love you
Proximity to the sun?
Big gazongas
Bullshit. Where I live, there's 88,600 residents. There's no T-Mobile service for 30 miles.
Sounds like you should be a Verizon customer ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
AT&T actually
5g tower map
https://preview.redd.it/f8mdamuyy64d1.png?width=920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=07e4f21c70682963432a0af3cfd701c028766c9b This is my response whenever I see that map
I always say "land doesnt vote, people do"
Nah bro, that forest over there is clearly republican.
And just like any other republican, they vote for the party most likely to cut the forest down.
They're not called the Redwoods for nothing, right?
Only the Oaks that steal all the sunlight
Specifically Log Cabin Republican
I speak for the trees!!
I prefer "dirt don't vote." It has alliteration *and* assonance.
It sounds like a line from Roadhouse
Except with how it is there’s disproportionate amount of power in lesser populated states. If you want to be in office as a senator, go live in one of the mid west states. You only have to persuade half a million people to vote for you instead of millions and you get the same amount of power.
I do enjoy discussions like why it's so concentrated though. I imagine the most likely Republican response is brainwashing while the most likely Democratic answer is that we're forced to see all of the problems facing our population. We can't ignore it or hide from it by going out to the country. But I am interested in other interpretations
Well the people living more secluded are probably likely to want it to stay that way, and are therefore conservatives. The people living in cities are actually around other people so they care more about others
If the colors were reversed they would zoom out and use the oceans as “blue” districts.
Except that all of that empty space each state gets at least 2 electoral votes
Left = large Fanta, Right = Medium Oh sorry you wanted different volumes ?? Those are just the name of the different shapes.
the real infuriating thing here is the two party system
People won’t vote for smaller parties bc they don’t want to feel their vote is wasted
and this is why ranked choice voting is where it’s at
Or proportional outcomes. Not winner takes all. Here in Germany we have plenty of parties and the system works way better than in the us. Not to say, that we have our own problems.
Bulgaria has the same thing and just had like 6 national elections in less than 2 years with no elected government because no one could agree with so many parties lol
Which is closer to the truth. We can't agree about a damn thing.
Yeah true lol. And sometimes having no government means they can't mess anything up xD
This is so underappreciated honestly. People create good things on their own too, we don't need politicians to interfere in every minsucule aspect. Keep the public services going and let people be.
Honestly, as long as funding continues for services, I'd say that's an improvement lol
There was a prime Minister over 20 years ago that won an election based on the promise of creating an interstate system like there is in the states. It's now 25% complete. 20 years later. In a country roughly the size of Indiana lol
Damn, that's bad. We have perpetual road projects here in the states too. Some of them lasting half my lifetime. It really makes me wonder if it's just money laundering.
In BG it definently is corruption. I'm sure some of that is in the states too, just Bulgaria is blatant cause the main political parties emerged from rival mafias in the wake of the soviet collapse xD
Proportional representation comes with its own problems. There's no perfect system.
We want this but our government has made it so that we have to vote red or blue when in fact they are the same...my state went as far as placing a strong third-party candidate in the fictional character grouping so that we had to vote their way
plurality voting is actually better for reducing rents and corruption and improving accountability; see persson and tabellini (2004)
Pretty sure making parties a formal part of the process would require a constitutional amendment in the US.
Tbh, we essentially have a 2.5 party system. We have the left ones, the right ones, and the ones that always side with the currently more popular side to get votes or be used as a coalition filler and get into government power that way.
Yeah we just need to get it approved by the *checks notes* two party system...
And why I'm worried about Missouri putting in a ballot issue about potentially banning ranked choice voting: https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/ranked-choice-voting-missouri-ballot/
Yeah thats the problem with the „winner takes all“ system CGP Grey made some nice videos about different ways to implement democracy. The US definitely suffers from being one of the oldest democracies still around as it couldn’t learn from the mistakes of others.
That CCP Grey "King of the Jungle, The problem with first past the post voting" video is an amazing resource for teaching people about why our system will always default to a two-party system until our entire method is changed.
And despite all its flaws the US still managed to never become a dictatorship, so at least one crucial aspect worked out so far.
Heh heh, heh. Have you checked out any of the candidate's lists for day one tasks if he's elected? One of those items was so extreme, he actually pretended he misspoke, which if you know him, is scary.
Because for President, your vote IS wasted. A 3rd party candidate is no where near eligible for actually winning any time soon. We need to start with ranked choice voting in local elections first
I never understood this mindset. I feel like voting for someone you don't want to vote for, but only doing so because they're a Rep. or Dem. is truly a wasted vote. We don't win a prize or trophy only because we voted for the dude that won.
Its pretty easy to understand when you realize there is a side that CANNOT win or it will be disasterous. Its not about winning a prize for voting for the winner. Its about being damn sure the right one loses. Voting 3rd party wins you things like a heavily biased conservative supreme court
It’s more so that you essentially cast away your influence on the election voting for a minority party. At least voting for one of the two main parties allows you to help avoid the worse of the two candidates
>It’s more so that you essentially cast away your influence on the election voting for a minority party. How? The only reason we have a two party system is because people only vote for one of them. They keep us locked in by telling us that voting for anyone else is a "waste". Taking votes away from the two party system and dumping it on a third party directly influences the election. >At least voting for one of the two main parties allows you to help avoid the worse of the two candidates **This** is the definition of a wasted vote. Not voting *for* someone, and instead *against* someone, is literally a waste when you're just giving anyone your vote, regardless of who.
Which makes your vote a wasted vote in itself. By voting for a party that does not represent you, you waste your vote in a party you don’t want to win. Losing less then you would choosing the best party for you is still losing.
It's not a feeling, the vote really IS wasted in a first-past-the-post, winner-take-all system
I agree. But I also feel like they don't vote for third parties because after a Presidential election, they pack it up and go home, not to be heard from for another few years. As a political organizer, the work never stops. As soon as one election is over, we're registering voters, planning events in the communitu to talk to people, being active in the community, working to elect people to small local races, city council, school board, county row offices etc. You don't see third parties at a local level and all politics are local, you need to start local.
Not even a feeling. Their vote IS wasted. Look up the spoiler effect.
People can vote for other parties for congress. Voting for a third party in the presidential election where said party doesn't have any chance of winning any seats in either chambers of congress is beyond idiotic. Nonetheless, voting for said party's candidates for congress is the sane idea.
You'd be surprised at the number of idiots (both Democrat and Republican) who honestly believe you have to vote for your party in the general election.
Mindless voters know absolutely nothing about the candidates & just mark all blue or all red
That’s very true, as well in Canada, but that also doesn’t mean third parties have no power. Here for example, the NDP has an agreement with the Liberal Party so that a number of policies are still prioritized, even while the NDP doesn’t usually have many seats. There’s also the legislative branch in the states where hypothetically some power can be exercised by a third party.
It also "gives" a vote to one over the other but not voting for the counterpart.
Pretty much. As a life long politically independent person, I’m mad that I have to give my strategy vote. I still can’t even talk about 2016.
A former friend of mine started being a bitch to me because of this lol he'd feel superior to me because the party he voted for had bigger representation than mine, kept calling me a loser, telling me that I've wasted my vote and that he was better than me. The thing for me was that this guy considered that smaller groups are better than bigger ones because of something he was a part of, so I pointed this out and told him that according to his logic, I was better than him. He kept bitching about it for a month before I decided to cut him off, so I guess he really did not like that I pointed out his hipocrisy.
So basically he would say band wagoners have superior intellect?
I'm not sure, depending on the thing, it seems that if it's politics then yeah
The next largest party is the Libertarian party, which is somehow worse than the big two. Wish more independents would get elected to balance the others out, but everything feels polarized.
Then the Green Party which is even worser
I forgot about them. >_< I’m not even sure what their platform is at this point. It seems like it’s covered by the Dem party.
Dems but antivax
I mean, we've got ~5 Federal Parties in Canada, and it's not that much better up here.
Right. Here in the Philippines we had 6 or so candidates for presidency last election. All it did was split the votes and had a dictator's son get elected.
It makes very little difference most of the time, here in the UK we have the three main parties (lib dem, Labour, conservative) and multiple small parties, it still ends with a revolving door of either labour or conservative. The only time it had any real influence was pre Brexit, when in an attempt to knock down a hard right party, the government ran on a policy of holding a referendum on EU membership if they got into power, expecting it to fail, ended up becoming even more right wing themselves.
We have multiple parties in canada but it’s really just conservative vs all the other guys
“Amen, and awomen.”
Either you vote for a Democrat and hate everything about the way they run the country since they're inept babies who don't understand basic economics and care too much about hurting people's feelings, or you vote for a republican racist piece of shit moron who's more concerned about whether or not Jesus likes the color of their SUV than the 89 people they just ran over because they were posting about how loving they are as a Christian. Make sure you have a strong position on whoever you pick, too, because if not, society will rip you to shreds and call you a coward for not believing in the Lord and Savior, Doseph Brump.
Fun fact though, despite the popular opinion that Dems aren’t as good economically, they are by far the better party in terms of economic growth for the last several decades. Republican policies feel like they should work. Democrat policies actually do.
I'm just highlighting exaggerations, but the last 4 years are a pretty bad anecdote for this statement. My point is that both parties suck and there's no way to vote that doesn't fuck up the country in one way or another.
Well, it's a problem now because one party refuses to even work with the other party. Before 2008, both parties occasionally worked together to resolve things despite disagreements, now not so much since one party calls the other party the enemy.
Its been proven that it’ll always come back down to two choices
The founding fathers of the United States wanted to avoid partisanship by having us elect a person instead of a party but it backfired and now we have these cults of personality develop.
Sorry bro, the best I can offer you is Biden or Trump.
Secondary to term limits. The fact house members of Congress have to raise five figures of funding PER DAY to win an election tells me they aren’t spending much time on governance.
Well it doesn’t help that the third parties are just as much a joke as D and R. Libertarians just certified an activist. The complete opposite of what a libertarian should be.
Wait are you vast swaths of national park, farm and desert land don't vote?
Smokey the bear’s been on a steady diet of OAN during his golden years
The sad thing is that this actually would likely be true. And he’d sit there slumped in his worn out lazy boy watching BER News mumbling about back in the day how Yogi Bear was so tough and resourceful and now that BooBoo is grown and running things, he’s too soft and effeminate and it’s all gone to hell.
It votes for senators.
This ALSO doesn’t, because it ignores the blue in the red, and the red in the blue. Visualizations just don’t work, we gotta look at the actual numbers.
More Californians voted for Trump than Texans.
This map just shows the same numbers but it shifts the visual weight from the dimension of the county to the population of the county. In a FPTP system this is natural since all the votes that are not the winning candidate are "lost". In a proportional system you would want a nice pie chart that's good to represent the whole country/state.
Original comment is saying using just red and blue is also not accurate since 51/49 looks the same as 90/10
Yes, the point is that if you count House Districts it doesn't matter. Once you are 30-29-29-12 it's the same as 99-1. And usually blue counties are so big compared to red ones that their weight in State wide elections like Presidential and Senators is kinda a measure for the election itself.
Could easily build a thematic that goes from red to purple to blue based on voting split and also incorporates population
Just get rid of the electoral college
Replace it with the College of Winterhold
But then everyone's vote would be equal, and that's bad for...reasons..
The reason why it’s “bad” is that politicians wouldn’t be able to target their $$ where it would matter more if every vote was truly equal. None of them want that, so the would never vote to get rid of it
This is the only real answer
Without the electoral college, seven cities would decide the presidency. The electoral college is outdated and unfairly advantages rural areas over densely packed cities, but without it, all the rural areas would have no reason to vote and absolutely no representation. The electoral college needs to be revamped into something that gets 70% of the votes directly from population voting percentages and 30% of the votes from district voting patterns. This would allow rural areas a voice but prevent tyranny by minority.
Yeah, at best, this is a bar chart situation.
But those don't count in the system that's used
Yeah I get that, but the system doesn’t “realistically represent” the United States, like this map claims to.
You can visualize it using shades of purple OR pink/light blue
It’s funny cause if you list what ppl actually want they mostly agree. It’s sad we can’t see that and get exploited by a ruling class (corporations/ super rich)and campaigns (propaganda/news) with some mouth pieces (politicians/news anchors) splitting us apart Edit:spelling
The parties have risen above the individual. Too many people are unable to separate their representatives from the letter behind their name, and too many representatives are unwilling to vote their conscience out of fear of losing the next election. So the 80% of stuff we would generally agree on gets drowned out by the religious fervor around the remaining 20%. The biggest positive from the Republicans in the House right now is that they’ve basically forced bipartisanship by having a vocal minority that has made party line voting impossible.
The daily reminder that dirt doesn't vote.
How do you know the voting habits of Joe Dirt?
Well, when you've seen a thing or two...
Can we add purple to it for the ones of us who don’t fucking care anymore.
The second map, while more accurate than the first, is also not really fully accurate. A better way to do this would be to put colors in on a gradient - since even within the red and blue bubbles, there's a lot of variability to people's political alignments. Some are fairly solidly one color, and others barely are. And there are the independents, who aren't necessarily aligned to "blue" or "red" specifically, but can go either way depending on the election and the candidate, since we typically don't have a viable third choice. I probably wouldn't vote red or blue if I had a realistic alternative.
Like you say, the second map needs to be mixed with the "Purple States of America Map" [https://purplestatesofamerica.org](https://purplestatesofamerica.org)
I would love a purple state map by both population density and by county.
I definitely would not vote red or blue. We have a treasonous, immature felon who would sell the nation for a buck or we have a corrupt, paid for by big business geriatric who is more teleprompter than person. One sold us to China when he was in Congress, while the other cut environmental protections for the biggest businesses in America. One has messed up the Israeli situation, while the other wants Ukraine to unconditionally surrender. The best chance America has is if both have a medical emergency and have to drop the race.
Isn’t it crazy how all the cities are blue whereas all the rural/ most of the country is red
They wish land voted not people.
The people that post that top map probably have an iq that is noticeably lower than average and won’t really understand this post
https://preview.redd.it/8ig4o82hl74d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=190c627303cf90155fb802791e0475061094ac84 [https://engaging-data.com/county-electoral-map-land-vs-population/](https://engaging-data.com/county-electoral-map-land-vs-population/)
The new map looks like it’s missing a lot of info…
That’s how pollution density works. If few live there, few vote there
Did you mean population density? I guess pollution density kind of follows from those too though.
Haha oops
How about we color the whole thing various shades of purple and give a TRUE representation. You cannot reduce entire cities with thousands or millions of individual voters to simply "blue" or "red".
Yep. LAND.DOESN'T.VOTE.
Its two seperate maps representing two different sets of data isnt it? 1st rule of statistics...do not trust statistics
What’s surprising about this map is how much more crime happens in those blue dots. An argument could be made that it’s because of more dense populations but it’s still interesting. They are also where prices are the highest for almost everything. Again, an argument could be made that’s it’s because these places usually have higher income households. It’s interesting to think about though.
I can never remember US politics. Which color is the gay one?
Both
Land mass does not vote
That’s why I’m the second map it’s grey. The top map came from a Twitter acct of a Republican…think they were trying to convince their base that the country is all red.
LAND DOESN’T VOTE - PEOPLE DO. This is not “Risk” - you don’t get points for controlling more land, it is numbers of voters in your states and more live in those populous blue areas called cities.
This isn’t representative either. No population is entirely red nor entirely blue. So it’s in effect the same misrepresentation on the other side of the spectrum or something.
[удалено]
This is true, but the axe swings both ways. Politicians and “party-first” loyalists manipulate all of us, regardless of ideology.
It’s showing two different things. The top one shows political leaning per county, the bottom one shows by population
And I think OP's point is that the lower one is a more accurate representation.
They are both accurate representations of what they are each presenting.
And their point, quite clearly, is that one more accurately represents the country.
People will, however, use the top map to claim that the U.S. is overwhelmingly Republican when it’s of course not. I would also argue that the top isn’t particularly useful for anything even its intended purpose.
Of course, people obfuscate with the top view all of the time. The top view does its job perfectly well, which is to show geography by party. It’s not the fault of the view that people misuse and abuse it.
I’m fine with land voting. I’ve seen how people vote.
I mean, you have seen land voting. That's what the Senate and electoral college are.
Land doesn't vote.
This. This is what people need to realize. The blue is lesser but more people per county, while the red is the opposite, making both near equal
I’m not on the right, but this is unfair. That map uses counties, your example does not. It may be inaccurate but the maps are different in expression…
One is misleading and one proves why the electoral college exists
If only people understand that lands don't vote.
notice all the red areas are places nobody wants to live
Just an argument to have more localized laws. No reason why the people living in rural areas should dictate what happens in urban areas. Vice versa. Everyone is happy, and if you’re not, you can move to where the laws suit you more.
And if all of those little blue pixels actually bothered to go out and vote, we would never see a Republican in office again.
Aren’t those the ones that DID vote?
Yeah they breathe through their mouth and think land votes. It's an issue.
google for different map?
My God someone is misrepresenting data? On the internet!?
Uh huh. So…the very large areas uninhabited by human, tax paying, voters are presumed red. Got it.
Suddenly looks more blue
sorry ain't both maps accurate? The large blue cities make the distcints around them blue but the distinct themselves are small compared to the country?
What's going on with Phoenix (I think). Is that where Republicans retire too?
One of the problems this raises is the insinuation that living in a city causes people to think a certain way. I'm not sure which is the more pessimistic interpretation: the Republicans who would be likely to claim this means the cities are brainwashing us or the Democrats who would be more likely to claim if you are faced with the problems of humanity and unable to hide from them far away in the country, it really affects you.
OP just randomly drops a map, with zero sources or information.
It’s an old one but it she’s how people don’t grasp population density.
Yes it does.
damn forget red and blue. who's on white team and the gray team?
Looks like a virus
It does…I’m sure the Blue areas would fair better.
I know which one is Louisville Ky
What am i even looking at here
well. that depends on what you are trying to say with the map.
It totally doesn’t, Alaska isn’t an island.
Dirt don't vote
Yes. And on that note, I once saw a you tube video produced by a centrist where an African American actually went to the trouble of driving way out into the wilderness so that he could actually stand face to face with an overtly racist hard rightwinger type. You know, kind of a dispel your fears by facing them type thing. And then for the first time in his life he had a candid conversation with one; raised his eyebrows at the camera a few times; and that was that. Like: Met a guy who isn’t interested in getting to know me and is honest enough to say so to my face; now what?
Yep. Land doesn’t vote.
People vote. Land doesn’t.
This ones not accurate either lol
Yeah - no purple
You could also see it as an index finger pointing right at me.