this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2024
698 points (84.6% liked)
Political Humor
793 readers
1534 users here now
Political Shitposting
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This was the second highest turnout in a hundred years. In the seven swing states turnout either met or exceeded 2020. This is not an interesting point.
It was a 12% drop in voting in probably the most crucial election in modern times. Sorry if it's not an interesting enough meme.
It's meaningless in a system that uses an electoral college.
Popular vote isn't meaningless, just distorted. There's a limit to how much you can lose by and still manage to get enough electoral votes.
What's the limit?
Good question. It would be difficult to calculate. I would start by examining electoral districts to find the ones where voters from the popular majority party in a state have been concentrated by gerrymandered so they will heavily win those districts but lose in most others, enabling the minority party to win that state. Then determine how many votes the gerrymandered party would need to overcome this by winning some of those other districts. Then do this for the whole country and add up the total.
What does gerrymandering have to do with winning a state's electoral college delegates outside of Maine and Nebraska? States award all their delegates to the winner of the states popular vote.
Ok then I'm wrong. How would you estimate it?
I wouldn't. Popular vote doesn't have a meaningful role in determining the presidency.
Popular vote doesn't have a meaningful role in determining the presidency, but all states except Maine and Nebraska allocate their electoral votes according to it. Well alrighty then, you have yourself a good day!
This is the national popular vote.
When states allocate their electoral votes, it's based upon the state's popular vote. So if a candidate gets the most votes in California. If only one person votes for that candidate in California, the candidate gets all the electoral votes in California. If everyone votes in Alaska, the winning candidate only gets Alaska's electoral votes.
The national popular vote isn't meaningful in determining the president. The only determinant is the electoral college.
Sure, the national popular vote total doesn't determine the presidency, but it's also not "meaningless". The popular vote winner has won the presidency all but 5x in US history.
I feel like we've strayed very far from the original statement.
In our electoral college system the total national vote isn't the cause of a president getting elected. Many of the people who didn't turn out were in states that were already considered Democrat strongholds such as New Jersey. Only seven states mattered. They were close enough that the polls weren't able to tell who was in the lead. Both Republicans and Democrats spent a lot of money on spreading their message and getting out the vote. These seven states had record or near record turn out.
In light of all of this, what is your argument?