this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2024
210 points (95.3% liked)

You Should Know

32556 readers
5 users here now

YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.

All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.



Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:

**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities:

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

Credits

Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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)

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Broken_Monitor@lemmy.world 81 points 1 month ago (1 children)

YSK the electoral college can get fucked.

[–] Randelung@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Gogo Interstate Compact!

[–] Today@lemmy.world 62 points 1 month ago (6 children)

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

[–] atx_aquarian@lemmy.world 41 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

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

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@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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:

I think the common term for these is "cartogram".

[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The red looks like a disease

It really fucking does, doesn't it?

[–] tanisnikana@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

My brain instinctively rejects that image. Not cause it isn’t accurate; it’s showing what it’s supposed to.

But really, that the shape of it is hostile and threatening and it looks vaguely biological and some creepy shit gets sent up and down my spine about it.

[–] Reyali@lemm.ee 22 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Today@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's what hurts so much! The people on the street and the images on tv are so wildly different. In most cases - there's a bar in Harper that's probably best to just avoid.

[–] Today@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

We stopped by with plans to wear a mask in, grab some beers, and then sit outside to drink them. Approached, saw this, decided to skip it.

[–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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@lemm.ee 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It depends on what they mean by affected. I say that lower voter turnout in Dem areas due to well crafted apathy counts as affected. Some people say that since everyone's vote counts it's not because they're counting legal mechanisms as affected. Of course there are also some folks that just don't understand and are wrong.

I get what you're saying and I agree with what you're attempting here. It affects it because we let it depress us and keep us from voting (not me, I'm in a white suburb and it's super easy for me to vote a couple of weeks early).

[–] Reyali@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Ah yeah, in both cases I’m referring to they were saying the gerrymandered districts meant their blue votes for president didn’t count. I agree that the apathy strongly affects the overall outcome!

In one case, I tried to correct the perception by saying basically when I said here (popular vote determines the state’s allocation of electoral college votes), and I was “corrected” by my acquaintance that the president race is determined by electoral vote, not popular vote. 🤦🏻‍♀️

[–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

I mean, also true, but that's nationally. Each of our votes goes towards the 40 electoral college votes that Texas gets, and it's winner take all. So internal to Texas, each vote counts individually towards our electrical votes. But that's hard to explain. Hence well crafted apathy.

It sounds like they've been fed the same kind of bullshit that makes people think they'll pay more in taxes if they have overtime.

Misinformation is a hell of a drug. It's hard to battle misinformation when the truth is so damn close to what they're saying even when you know they're wrong.

You're doing good work and it's a hell of an uphill battle. There are a lot of confidently incorrect people out there saying almost the same thing as you, but it's just wrong enough to be fucking dangerous.

[–] badhops@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

Maps like that are generated to deceive one from the start.. They want people to believe all the soil will vote red

[–] lordnikon@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

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

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] Today@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

It's not normal to hate.

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 31 points 1 month ago (3 children)

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@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 month ago

He should have said almost every.

But thanks for pointing out the mathematical truth ☝️

[–] Reyali@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago

Ok, fair point, lol.

[–] Snazz@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Theoretically the electorals could go blue without winning any districts. It would require a third party to win at least one district though.

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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@lemmy.today 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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@lemm.ee 12 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] YeetPics@mander.xyz 14 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

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@lemm.ee 6 points 1 month ago

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?

[–] roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Do states have more or less electoral votes based on population?

Like would California have more say in who becomes president than Idaho?

Or is it that stupid system where each state has an equal amount of votes?

[–] Cort@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Both actually. Each state gets 2 plus the proportional split ( based on population)of the remaining 435. So California as a whole has more say than Idaho as a whole but each individual voter in California has less say than an individual voter in Idaho.

[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It's assigned proportionally but each state gets a few extra votes to give smaller states more weight.

Originally, states would then award these proportionally, but some state got "smart" and realized that if they gave all their votes to the most popular candidate they'd get more attention ... other states soon followed suite and Madison went and died before he could fix this abuse of the system (which bothered him).

https://fairvote.org/why-james-madison-wanted-to-change-the-way-we-vote-for-president/

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] Reyali@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago

You should vote regardless (downballot blue votes also help resist the creep towards obe-party autocracy).

At the same time, be aware of efforts that might be active in your area to disqualify you:

  • Voter suppression
  • Registration purges
  • Intimidation (threats)
  • Intimidation (actual violence)
  • procedural shennanigans
  • outright election fraud
  • violent coup d'etat
load more comments
view more: next ›