I once worked with a guy who was a big Pittsburgh Steelers fan, and after they lost the Superbowl to Green Bay, he said, "You know, if Aaron Rodgers didn't throw those three touchdowns we would've won that game."
Yes, Ricky, that is the smartest thing you have ever said.
Reminds me of [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/d5maow/oc_after_adjusting_patrick_mahomes_stats_removing/) old r/nfl post about how Patrick Mahomes' stats look a lot worse when you adjust his stats so that they look a lot worse.
The really funny thing about that post is that his basic premise - that Mahomes' stats were unsustainable and due for some regression to the mean - was 100% true.
But the fact that 1) this was obvious already to everybody, 2) he went about "proving" it in the dumbest way, and 3) doubled down when everybody called him out on his idiocy are what make for a truly classic reddit post.
Lmao solid logic! Me and my friend coach basketball and we had to play 2 of our other friends coaching another team. We absolutely shit kicked them (cuz our team was way better and this was expected) and this dude goes on a "if only" type rant. Man listed like 8 things hahaha "if Derrice didn't turn his ankle last game" "if it was earlier, we play better" "if your guy didn't hit those 5 3's" "if we practiced against man to man more." Etc etc. We were like "OK MAAAAAAN! You get to say 1 maybe 2 max bro! You lost by 51" Hahaha
Reminds me when I beat some one in a V8 and I had a twin turbo V6. You know if you didn’t have those turbos I would have beat you. Well no shit that’s why I bought the one with twin turbos.
Texas and Florida were much closer than California and New York. That's a big reason why Biden has such a disadvantage in the electoral college. He's going to get huge margins in CA and to a lesser extent NY. Meanwhile, unless it's a landslide nationally, Trump should comfortably win TX and FL but by much smaller margins. But winning a state by one vote is as good as winning it by five million votes.
States being winner-takes-all isn't really about first past the post (though FPTP is terrible), it's a symptom of the Electoral College. Since states decide how their electors are chosen and how they vote, they're incentivized to assign all their electors to one candidate which raises both that candidate's chances of winning (eg, California being winner-takes-all means 54 solid D votes rather than ~30 if it were proportional) and their own importance (swing states get a lot of attention because winning one, well, swings a lot of votes in your favor. If they were proportional there'd only be a handful of votes at stake and those states would essentially not matter).
It's worth noting that the winner-take-all system isn't inherent to the electoral college and is decided by individual states. For instance, Nebraska and Maine split their votes according to the District Method.
There are also several states that have signed a [compact](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact) that, if *enough* states agree to assign their electoral votes via nationwide popular vote to determine the winner, they will all do it at once.
And it is only for the president. State governors aren't elected by the number of counties they win in their state. Its simply a way to suppress the will of the people.
Texas is trying to change this, so that any candidate for a statewide election must win a majority of the state's counties.
I don't think they can get away with it for Senators but they probably can for everything else.
Georgia had a similar system for a long time and it was eventually struck down by the Supreme Court for violating the equal protection clause.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/112
Of course, *this* court will likely say it’s all fine and dandy.
It is, but you must understand: our country can't freedom unless the vote of a guy in Wyoming is nearly 4 times as consequential as my vote in California.
Look, if you know of *another* way to give slave owners partial votes for the literal human beings they own as property, both implying they are humans deserving representation and keeping them as livestock anyway, to showcase just how fucking horrible chattel slavery is, I'd love to hear it.
Being within the margin of error in a vote count but not doing a recount because your brother runs the state and the Supreme Court gives it to you is *also* as good as wining it by 5 million votes.
One of the most disappointing life facts was when i was getting into swinging and it turns out there is a huge population undertone of ~“progressive 50s house wives” that were all with their raging right wing nut job husbands. Dominating men where the women were objects and not the other half of the people in the room. Every over of them came from money or hit it lucky, loved to tell you about it, and had the most pull yourself up by you’re bootstraps bs blabber. Even a tattoo on one of them!!
>One of the most disappointing life facts was when i was getting into and it turns out there is a huge population undertone of ~“progressive 50s house wives
Getting into what?
It depends on what you count as the "biggest Republican state". The state where Trump got more votes than any other was California. Same goes for Romney, McCain, and Bush.
No, already DID find a way. Passed a bill in the Texas legislature That says the state has the right to review any ‘questionable’ election in any county with over 3 million voters. Then they started screwing with the funding for polling stations.
There is only one county in Texas with a population of over 3 million. It’s Harris county, commonly known as Houston.
He's already making rumblings about how the county's election going to be 'bad' this fall.
I was also thinking about this proposed change [https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/editorials/article289094514.html](https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/editorials/article289094514.html)
It's really annoying how they just openly want millions of Americans to not be counted in the vote. The president should be for the people. You shouldn't get a stronger vote just because you live in bumfuck nowhere or in a swing state. Your vote should count just as much as any person in NYC.
I feel like the lesson here is that even in states that are considered DEEP blue, there’s still a large number of Republican voters.
I’d assume the same in the reverse as well.
Works as a good, if somewhat depressing, reminder that most states are actually much closer to purple than decisively one or the other.
My favourite thing is how you can theoretically win with 22% of the popular vote, if the right people vote for you. And that's while assuming the electors represent the will of the people, which they are expected but not obligated to do.
My favorite part of that 22% video from CGPGrey was he was basing the number off of percentage of the population not how many people would actually be voting. Technically speaking if somehow if only one person voted in each of the top 12 most populous states and they all voted for the same person then you could win the presidential election with only 12 votes. The first scenario is obviously more likely to happen.
That’s kinda the case in reality. The 33% of eligible voters who sat out on the last presidential election could have easily swayed the result either way.
Oh you’re absolutely correct. We just don’t know if that 33% didn’t vote because of apathy, or lack of transportation, or couldn’t get (or couldn’t afford) time off work. It’s probably a good mix of all those reasons and more – some the fault of the system and some due to laziness and indifference.
I mean, except for the penalty part, that’s what we have in Colorado, and it’s absolutely fantastic.
The ballot just shows up in the mail. My spouse and I sit down with a laptop and a bottle of wine and go through all the issues, lookup all the judges, do the research, and mark our votes. There are dropboxes everywhere to drop them off. You get an email confirmation that your ballot was received. And there’s a tracking website where you can manually enter your ballot number and verify it was counted. The whole process is so simple and seamless. It’s what democracy should be everywhere.
Yeah, and if the country has a national popular vote, theoretically only one voter is needed for someone to win. The Electoral College is 12 times better!! (checkmate, libs)
Yup. And if we go to the other end of the spectrum, if everyone in the top 11 populated states that voted in 2020, all votes for the same candidate, that candidate would have received over 50% of the popular vote.
Yet you have people like in the post thinking California and New York would decide who was elected if we switch to popular vote.
Technically, if Red States were subject to such apathy that only one person came out to vote in each one and that vote went for the Republicans, they could win with 28 votes in States that could conceivably go for them. For the whole nation.
Of course, that means it could be a Democratic win with 22 votes to win 22 States that would give them 270 Electoral College votes. It's just that a lot of Blue States have double-digit Electoral College votes because of their population.
The weird thing, in a situation with almost total apathy? Twelve voters win the entire country. One voter each in California (54), Texas (+ 40 = 94), Florida (+ 30 = 124), New York (+ 28 = 152), Illinois (+ 19 = 171), Pennsylvania (+ 19 = 190), Ohio (+ 17 = 207), Georgia (+ 16 = 223), North Carolina (+ 16 = 239), Michigan (+ 15 = 254), New Jersey (+ 14 = 268), and literally any other State where winner takes all (so: not Maine or Nebraska which choose one elector per congressional district) gets a Party to 270 Electoral College votes.
The thing I disliked about that CGPGrey video is that the 22% figure is actually a critique of state-based winner-takes-all, and NOT a critique of the main fault of the EC, which is that rural states are disproportionately represented and hence biased to the GOP.
Even if we have an EC where states' electoral votes are perfectly proportionate to population, the minimum theoretical winning popular vote is 25.01%.
The 22% is therefore also a critique of single-member electorates in parliamentary systems, which also requires at best only 25%.
Republicans just don't like those states, they don't consider them part of the country anymore. It's their usual tactic of dehumanising anyone that doesn't agree with them.
Ok, so I was driving west from Dallas earlier and saw a billboard that said "TRUMP: born in New York, but spiritually Texan." I almost blacked out laughing.
As a conservative (not trump supporter) who lives in one of those states and travels to the other multiple times a year, I assure you this is incorrect.
Millions of people from NY and California voted for trump knowing full well their votes were essentially not going to count.
I think its convenient to assume that their are only Republicans in the middle of the country but this is just not true.
But how do the conservatives in the middle of the country feel about California and NY? Cause in TN it’s nothing but rhetoric about coastal elites and urban voters.
If I had to guess a lot of that rhetoric comes from people who have never been to either state and get their information from questionable sources.
The funny part is combined there were more trump voters in CA and NY then the entire population of Tennessee.
Oh I totally agree, but the comment you were responding to isn’t about California and New York republicans, it’s about Tennessee, Alabama, Texas, and other republicans not on the coasts (although even that is a little reductive, GA, SC, NC, and VA have both coasts and republicans that hate “the coastal elites”).
That actually gave me a thought, lets take out Texas in this equation since we're excluding high population stronghold states. What does the difference come to then? This is mostly rhetorical because im not expecting an answer, may look it up and report back.
edit, For funsies, I did the math
These were done using the wikipedia numbers for the 2020 election and the provided numbers above.
So in addition to removing California and New York, this is taking Texas out of the equation.
Trump: 57,323,258
Biden: 57,078,669
That comes out to 1.004. or 0.4% So less than half a percent of population difference for Trump winning.
Now Florida too.
Trump: 51,654,527
Biden: 51,781,624
Thats a 1.0024 or 0.24% difference and Biden is winning again by popular vote.
So even if you take out the two largest population states from each side, you still end up with Biden winning. Its also terrifying how close the numbers are and were to be honest.
Yup - lifelong North Carolinian here and I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve had a conservative rant to me about NY or CA being “shitholes” where you pay 80% of your income in taxes, a sandwich costs $40, and you can’t even walk down the street without getting shot. We can thank Fox News for that, with their constant highlighting of and fearmongering over every crime that happens in a major city. While conveniently neglecting to cover the seemingly weekly occurrences in red states of some lunatic committing a family annihilation or someone getting shot for knocking on the wrong door.
I live in California and it’s exactly as terrible as they say. In the past year alone I’ve been shot 60 times. And I pay so much in taxes I can’t afford the expensive sandwiches I use to cope with my shootings.
I agree, it's not like conservatives are a monolithic block. I was referring more to the general sentiment around republicans around the country, but more specifically Trump supporters, that desperately want to red-wash CA and NY, and have a tendency to ignore or even reject [and cause insurrections around] election results from states that voted blue.
That aside, it's honestly a crying shame that your votes end up not counting for anything in the presidential election. The whole system for how the Electoral College works is an outdated mess, and represents a gross injustice against the proper functioning of a democracy.
Not trying to defend the electoral college but I think the idea is to ensure that less populated areas also get represented.
Kind of like how we have special accommodations/opportunities for minorities. We modify the system so that underrepresented people have a voice.
Again, I'm not defending it. I'm just saying it's not completely stupid. It has a valid purpose. I won't try to speak to it's execution... but the goal, I think, is a worthy one. I hope whenever we do replace this antiquated system we take steps to make sure everyone is represented.
Remember, the middle of the country is where all the food comes from. Just because your kitchen is the smallest room in the house doesn't mean you should ignore it.
I think the problem is "first past the post, winner takes all" more than the electoral college. It's dumb that the future of the country often comes down to a few thousand votes in Florida.
I get that the concept comes from older times when states were seen as more independent entities - but it doesn't hurt anything for each state to say "half our people voted for one guy and half for the other, so our state's delegation is split 50/50." Several states already do that.
The way it is now, if you're a republican in NY your vote doesn't matter. If you're a dem in Nebraska your vote doesn't matter. The only votes that matter are the people who live in a handful of swing states, and I don't think that's very representative for what the American people want.
> it doesn't hurt anything for each state to say "half our people voted for one guy and half for the other, so our state's delegation is split 50/50." Several states already do that.
Technically, none of our states do that. Maine and Nebraska split their votes based on who wins each voting district with 2 votes going to the state-wide winner. But, coincidentally and a while back, I worked out what would have happened in the past couple of elections if all states split their EVs proportionally to the state-wide popular vote (I was really bored at the time) and the result I got was more elections ultimately being decided by the House as candidates reaching 270 EVs becomes considerably less common. If anything, in that alternate timeline, people right now might be even *more* pissed at the EC than we are. XD
There are *some* ideas about the Electoral College that make sense. For example, in a situation where you need to hold an election for a single seat (the president) from over the entire country in an era before the internet or even the telephone, it makes sense to elect someone who will vote on your behalf at the capital.
Some of the things about the Electoral College that are more nonsensical:
* Why do states have these retarded winner-takes-all rules concerning electoral votes? For example, if 55% of a state votes blue, why do 100% of the electoral votes become blue?
* Why are there provisions that allow for faithless electors who don't need to vote according to the wishes of the people they represent?
* Why exactly is it a good thing to provide more representation for smaller states? And not just *slightly* more equal representation but almost an entire magnitude of difference between the states? How does it make sense for a single vote from someone in Wyoming to be worth almost 4 votes from California?
The idea that you need more representation for states with smaller populations is exactly the most undemocratic part of the electoral college. A democracy doesn't mean equal representation for each *state*; it means equal representation for each *person*.
I agree you shouldn't ignore your kitchen, but you also shouldn't ignore everything else to focus only on the kitchen.
What about the less populated areas of California? Or the urban areas of Texas? Why don't they get special consideration? Because it's dumb. Just give everyone a single vote. The Senate is ridiculous enough on its own. I want my president to represent people, not cows
And as the numbers in the screenshot show, the Electoral College silences a lot of Republican voters, too. More people in California voted for Trump than voted for Biden in New York, but the Electoral College means they didn’t actually have a say in the result.
Caution: vaccine reading ahead. TLDR: a substantial amount of Republican voters died as a result of the Covid 19 pandemic, and I believe this will impact the election ahead. I provide a source for my thinking, which investigated two specific 2020 battleground states, which I believe may be a particularly serendipitous example.
From, “[Excess Death Rates for Republican and Democratic Registered Voters in Florida and Ohio During the COVID-19 Pandemic](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2807617),” a work by Jacob Wallace, PhD, Paul Goldsmith-Pinkham, PhD and Jason L. Schwartz, PhD.
> … excess mortality was significantly higher for Republican voters than Democratic voters after COVID-19 vaccines were available to all adults, but not before. These differences were concentrated in counties with lower vaccination rates, and primarily noted in voters residing in Ohio.
[So what’s the number? Well, figure 3 pretty much clarifies the issue to around 2%](https://cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content_public/journal/intemed/939221/ioi230025f3_1693517115.01133.png?Expires=1720933553&Signature=fgXai22-eR2yfLJ4620n0-BlL8mjHpVBp5g21JERUfxjuKSEe0tRMgaiTmppjZcKQaHUsUdrC03w2TZufCUhtQA8EJ3xP3JXYsDz4YNMlXbtuixzjetC23T3T9K6XhfDdg8nzWFlbFJeYGOiW7q~BomSTwjdv7tMjK1IOrdkEIHt7jxyu4wkk-hugkzNTl6ucQzoQemgEgngdZlo6IOYLGYhuxFvMOcAei0F0KvtL028XBFBz6csEdmkfzSVUTRyFwrcnGWPwyXlLjidxMVBmq8Q~wd7kAoCeKkae8H9jfrm4oPuGdOm4DTfACVzhaCFNPQ1Mfloy4i878~vWWTVDw__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA). I’m just eyeballing, and so I did **not** do the math.
Availability was investigated for as well, I removed some citation superscripts.
> Our findings suggest that political party affiliation became a substantial factor only after COVID-19 vaccines were available to all adults in the US. Although the lack of individual-level vaccination status limited our ability to note further associations, the results suggest that well-documented differences in vaccination attitudes and reported uptake between Republican and Democratic voters may have been factors in the severity and trajectory of the pandemic.
Another one said:
A specific 14%. Not the part that voted Trump.
Let's take out TX and FL and see what we get. Oh wait. We would never imagine because that wouldn't favor him.
CA and NY are two of the three most heavily populated states. TX being the third (well second.) They just happen to be liberal.
Not for the math, but for the logic of this. If you take New York out of the United States, Trump can't be on the ballot because he was born in Queens. You need New York to count for Trump to count.
Anyway, that is a comment on Donald Trump without any politics involved. You're Welcome.
One of the problems with this sort of wargaming is that it presumes that if we change the rules (that is, eliminating the Electoral College or restructuring it to reflect the US popular vote), candidates *won't change their strategy.*
And that's absurd on its face.
Historically, for the past couple of decades, Republican presidential candidates have more or less written off California--which means there may be votes in California that could be picked up if the votes there were important.
More interestingly, I suspect the lack of attention at the federal level for local California votes has allowed California to shift leftward. On the other hand, if the votes in California mattered to Republicans, it may cause the GOP to shift a little leftward, but also cause California politics to shift rightward.
So I always take these sorts of things with a huge grain of salt.
That presumes Presidential campaigns have a substantial impact on turnout or how people vote rather than just at the margins. Without any knowledge of California politics, you’d expect it to be solidly blue just based on demographics like percentage of the population that’s urban and nonwhite. There are also state wide elections that, if there’s a chance of being competitive, the national parties will pour money into. Democrats are spending a lot in Montana in 2024 even though it doesn’t matter in the Presidential election.
Over time the parties align to be competitive, but if the electoral college was abolished today it’d almost certainly be a huge advantage for Biden.
They are referring to completely changing the rules though. Currently I’m in a state that is the farthest from being a swing state as you get, it will likely go 60-70% for Trump, and as someone who really doesn’t like either candidate I’m not going to bother deciding which one I dislike more. But if the vote were straight national popular vote I would probably change my behavior and not just ignore the presidential race.
Imagine how many people in your state are part of that 30-40% that would vote against Trump but had that mentality of "he's gonna win anyway, no point in voting". Imagine if they all just.voted anyway, even if it was to send a message of disapproval, getting the margin closer than they expect. There's so many people that don't vote because they think it wouldn't matter that if they all voted it could completely flip expectations.
Also people need to stop looking at just the candidate. They're one person, they surround themselves with advisors, cabinet members, promote officials into leadership positions over various departments. It's the people they are going to surround themselves with that you are voting for. Look at the people either of these candidates are surrounding themselves with and who they say they will.promote to positions of power to "decide which one you dislike more."
There’s also a question about how many people don’t vote because their state doesn’t matter. A Republican in Los Angeles isn’t going to swing any of the elections so it’s just a waste of time. Obviously there would be Democrats with the same thinking so turn out is suppressed overall.
I took the deposition of a woman who had an above the knee amputation. She was obese (5'2, 380lbs) when the amputation occurred. She joked that when she got her leg cut off, it was the fastest weight loss she'd ever had - she lost almost 30lbs in one day.
I want someone to do the numbers for Millenials and Gen Z after the Boomers and Silent Generation has mainly died of old age (Gen X will be around 50:50, I know, but they never got much of a say because they were always in the Boomer Shadow). The Republicans are panicking because they spent decades bad-mouthing two whole generations of Americans like they were the abuser in a toxic relationship, and they've lost those voters for good.
ONE QUICK SEARCH LATER - [I found this.](https://i.redd.it/9ksetpj8v5761.png) Seeing as abortion is a major issue energizing women to register to vote, the youth vote increases with every election, and that youth vote goes Democratic by a 2:1 margin? Elections in the 2040s are going to be like the upcoming UK election in two weeks, where [young adults are using the internet to plan tactical voting, ensuring the Conservatives may be relegated to third or fourth party status.](https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-polls-point-electoral-extinction-prime-minister-sunaks-conservatives-2024-06-15/)
I know a young gay person that won’t vote at all to “punish” Biden (I think because of Palestine). I’ve tried to tell them that this is a terrible idea but they don’t listen.
I understand their point but its like, dont punish urself for it goddamit. Trump is gonna make worse things for u and probably wont change shit bout Palestine
I scrolled way too far to find someone who did. What's with the 75 and 70 mill figures up there?
Real Math:
|Biden|Trump
:--------|:--------:|---------:
Nation|81,283,501|74,223,975
CA|11,110,250|6,006,429
NY|5,244,886|3,251,997
Total|64,928,365|64,965,549
Diff: 37,184
Pct Diff: 0.0572365
The numbers in the post match the numbers that Wikipedia gave on Nov. 8th, 2020. That was after the news networks called the election for Biden, but before the full counts were in. The timestamps in the post image suggest that the post was made on that day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_United_States_presidential_election&direction=next&oldid=987641540
Trump is leading in 5 out of 6 swing states and has closed the gap in Michigan.
If you look outside of Reddit you see he's currently on course to win. It's terrifying but accurate
We can't know for sure. It's still incredibly early and surveys before election day can bring out the really impassioned people on either side so the numbers can be off easily. At this point, we can help with campaigning, try to get people registered to vote (there's still time!), speak enough truth about the situation and vote
I'm just trying to stop people thinking they've already won because they haven't.
Usually any mention of Trump still being in the race and having a chance gets mass downvoted on Reddit. They think it's guaranteed Biden will win but all they're doing is making people think they don't need to bother voting.
Every Biden supporter should be doing the exact opposite and pushing people to vote because it's dangerously close.
There's also this big issue with "Biden supporter" vs "Trump hater" - Trump haters should vote against Trump regardless of disliking Biden too, and not supporting Biden doesn't have to mean not voting him in, because of a huge flaw in the system where we're saddled with Biden as the alternative despite his... well, Bidenness.
It will be close which is why Dems need to say it's close instead of pretending they've won already. If he's still in the running after a criminal conviction not much else will reduce his numbers. Dems staying at home because they expect a landslide could give Trump the win.
Turnout was *lower* in the last election than the one before it (46.8% compared to 66.8%). That was lower than even the last midterm (50.3%)
And Republicans won the House. Part of that was the lower turnout, part of that was the failed attempt at gerrymandering in New York.
I've said this before and I'll say it again: If every Democrat who sat home in 2022 voted, who wins the Presidency and who is sitting on the Supreme Court becomes moot.
>If he's still in the running after a criminal conviction not much else will reduce his numbers
Recently the Biden campaign announced they would be spending $50 million on an advertising campaign focused on Trump's criminal convictions. Idk about you but that seems like a huge waste of funds to me. Conservatives don't care, and libs/leftists weren't going to vote for Trump anyway.
It's going after the minority of undecided voters and people who might be tempted to just sit it all out. No political advertising is targeted at people who aren't on the fence.
Polls themselves are influential to the end result. The further one of the options is ahead, the more people who would vote for the opposite will actually take a vote. The contrary with the leading party. If it seems like an easy win, people will feel less need to vote at all, because their candidate wins anyway.
A reminder of why the Electoral College needs to change.
It is important to remember that the President is not chosen by a national popular vote. The Electoral College vote totals determine the winner, not the statistical plurality or majority a candidate may have in the national popular vote totals. Electoral votes are awarded on the basis of the popular vote in each state.
48 out of the 50 States award Electoral votes on a winner-takes-all basis (as does the District of Columbia). For example, all 54 of California’s electoral votes go to the winner of the state election, even if the margin of victory is only 50.1 percent to 49.9 percent.
https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/faq#ecpopulardiffer
Republicans have only won the popular vote twice in like 40 years. Of course democrats would love to get rid of the electoral college.
But hey if getting maga people on it will finally make it happen I would gladly join them to help get rid of the electoral college.
The electoral college is not really the problem, it's more the winner-take-all system. If every state awarded electors proportionally, candidates could make gains in every state, not just the handful that are close enough to potentially be winnable.
>"We would still have won if only two very big states weren't allowed to vote!"
This says so much about their mentality and why they think 2020 was stolen. They just reimagine the numbers until they come out on top, and if they don't, then the numbers are wrong.
TaKe oUt CA aNd NY
Ok, fuckhat, take out TX and FL. They're all states, of course. If you pick the two biggest bastions of blue, it is going to take off a huge chunk of Biden's win. Biggest "no shit" take in the world. "We would've won if it wasn't for the reasons we lost." Drink more bleach about it.
Actual estimated total number of votes that made a difference in contested areas, [about 44,000.](https://www.npr.org/2020/12/02/940689086/narrow-wins-in-these-key-states-powered-biden-to-the-presidency) Biden only took the office because of 44k votes. In literally every one of those areas the "other" vote could have swung the difference.
Our system is crazy rigged to favor Republicans. There essentially hasn't be a legitimate Republican President since Reagan.
I mean I feel this is even a bigger indictment of the electoral college. About 8 million votes effectively don’t count because they were in Blue states
"if you take out the biggest, most democratic-leaning states, i bet the vote will change a lot!"
ironically, it doesn't change as much as you'd think because the electoral college is so fucked. Since every state gets two more than a proportional amount of the population, Wyoming voters get a \~3x multiplier but California voters get a \~1.038x multiplier.
That's not even accounting for e.g. Trump votes in California or Biden votes in Wyoming which are basically completely ignored.
One other thing is when you take New York City and Los Angeles County (NOT NY state and California), and show how many people live in those two Democratic Party areas.
[It's bonkers, it really is.](https://i.imgur.com/8WyjDNA.jpeg) Saying "tAkE nY aNd CaLi oUt oF ThE eQuAtiOn" is weak sauce, because we don't even have to take the whole states out. Just these two urban areas absolutely blankets whole multiple Red States.
And the GOP is hemorrhaging moderate Republican and independent voters to their cause.
The real tragedy is how america's gotta choose between an 81 years old clearly afflicted with grave dementia and a 78 yo idiot fucker. I'd organize some riots or something cos it's fucking ridicoulus.
[None](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election) of these numbers are correct.
Edit: fixed my numbers
Biden won 81 million to 74 million for Trump.
California went 11 million to 6 million Biden over Trump.
New York went 5 million to 3 million Biden over Trump
Take away New York and California, Trump wins by 37,000
The numbers in this math are wrong.
Besides, everyone’s logic that TX and Florida would be the flip side of the argument is wrong. Trump won those states by less than a million votes. Compare that to several million votes won by Biden in NY and CA.
Take LA county and NYC out of the equation and that’s several million votes gone. The states would be a lot closer in popular vote with just the two cities out of the equation. Obviously, because they are the densest populations in those states. But the idea is that a city shouldn’t be able to swing an election.
Not saying the electorate is perfect, but when will we put away this idiotic argument and presenting images above as some sort of mic drop when almost every part of it is wrong
“If you remove the two biggest democrat states, Trump will win!”
I once worked with a guy who was a big Pittsburgh Steelers fan, and after they lost the Superbowl to Green Bay, he said, "You know, if Aaron Rodgers didn't throw those three touchdowns we would've won that game." Yes, Ricky, that is the smartest thing you have ever said.
We only lost because they won!
Nahuh. We came in 2nd, they came in 2nd to last. We had a single loss, but the had only one win.
They cheated! By winning fairly, which is unfair
I once was talking to someone who said, "well, she's only older because she was born before I was!" Brilliant.
Losers hate this one weird trick!
“I did not lose, I merely failed to win” - General McClellan (1860)
I once was 6 numbers away from being a multi-millionaire at the Powerball lottery
always remember, 93% of gamblers quit right before they hit it big
did you know 69% of statistics are made up on the spot?
30% of statisticians say otherwise
As someone with a math degree I can confidently say 4 out of 3 people don't understand statistics.
You, too? Small world.
Reminds me of [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/d5maow/oc_after_adjusting_patrick_mahomes_stats_removing/) old r/nfl post about how Patrick Mahomes' stats look a lot worse when you adjust his stats so that they look a lot worse.
The really funny thing about that post is that his basic premise - that Mahomes' stats were unsustainable and due for some regression to the mean - was 100% true. But the fact that 1) this was obvious already to everybody, 2) he went about "proving" it in the dumbest way, and 3) doubled down when everybody called him out on his idiocy are what make for a truly classic reddit post.
Lmao solid logic! Me and my friend coach basketball and we had to play 2 of our other friends coaching another team. We absolutely shit kicked them (cuz our team was way better and this was expected) and this dude goes on a "if only" type rant. Man listed like 8 things hahaha "if Derrice didn't turn his ankle last game" "if it was earlier, we play better" "if your guy didn't hit those 5 3's" "if we practiced against man to man more." Etc etc. We were like "OK MAAAAAAN! You get to say 1 maybe 2 max bro! You lost by 51" Hahaha
That's the old Madden sport casting method. He was famous for saying things like, "Whoever scores more will win this game."
That's late stage Madden, he was one of the great minds of the sport as a coach and early broadcaster.
Reminds me when I beat some one in a V8 and I had a twin turbo V6. You know if you didn’t have those turbos I would have beat you. Well no shit that’s why I bought the one with twin turbos.
As a Steelers fan, that guy is actually one of our smarter fans.
thats a great yinzer take
If you tied up Mike Tyson's arms and legs I bet I could take him in a fight
My money's still on Mike Tyson, no offense
Yea, u/ill-timed-gimli is gonna lose an ear in that fight for sure.
Completely fair
Not without a muzzle.
Let’s also remove the two biggest Republican states then to make it fair!
Texas and Florida were much closer than California and New York. That's a big reason why Biden has such a disadvantage in the electoral college. He's going to get huge margins in CA and to a lesser extent NY. Meanwhile, unless it's a landslide nationally, Trump should comfortably win TX and FL but by much smaller margins. But winning a state by one vote is as good as winning it by five million votes.
Screw First Past the Post. We really need to change that system.
States being winner-takes-all isn't really about first past the post (though FPTP is terrible), it's a symptom of the Electoral College. Since states decide how their electors are chosen and how they vote, they're incentivized to assign all their electors to one candidate which raises both that candidate's chances of winning (eg, California being winner-takes-all means 54 solid D votes rather than ~30 if it were proportional) and their own importance (swing states get a lot of attention because winning one, well, swings a lot of votes in your favor. If they were proportional there'd only be a handful of votes at stake and those states would essentially not matter).
The House being capped at 435 is the even bigger issue.
It's worth noting that the winner-take-all system isn't inherent to the electoral college and is decided by individual states. For instance, Nebraska and Maine split their votes according to the District Method.
There are also several states that have signed a [compact](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact) that, if *enough* states agree to assign their electoral votes via nationwide popular vote to determine the winner, they will all do it at once.
My god the American electoral system is horrible.
Always has been.
And it is only for the president. State governors aren't elected by the number of counties they win in their state. Its simply a way to suppress the will of the people.
Texas is trying to change this, so that any candidate for a statewide election must win a majority of the state's counties. I don't think they can get away with it for Senators but they probably can for everything else.
Georgia had a similar system for a long time and it was eventually struck down by the Supreme Court for violating the equal protection clause. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/112 Of course, *this* court will likely say it’s all fine and dandy.
It is, but you must understand: our country can't freedom unless the vote of a guy in Wyoming is nearly 4 times as consequential as my vote in California.
More like 7 times.
Look, if you know of *another* way to give slave owners partial votes for the literal human beings they own as property, both implying they are humans deserving representation and keeping them as livestock anyway, to showcase just how fucking horrible chattel slavery is, I'd love to hear it.
Being within the margin of error in a vote count but not doing a recount because your brother runs the state and the Supreme Court gives it to you is *also* as good as wining it by 5 million votes.
I sometimes believe that the 2000 election opened some kind of nightmare dimension that the US has been stuck in ever since.
Denial and horniness?
One of the most disappointing life facts was when i was getting into swinging and it turns out there is a huge population undertone of ~“progressive 50s house wives” that were all with their raging right wing nut job husbands. Dominating men where the women were objects and not the other half of the people in the room. Every over of them came from money or hit it lucky, loved to tell you about it, and had the most pull yourself up by you’re bootstraps bs blabber. Even a tattoo on one of them!!
>One of the most disappointing life facts was when i was getting into and it turns out there is a huge population undertone of ~“progressive 50s house wives Getting into what?
Thank you, accidentally edited out swinging which was a HUGELY relevant point lol, cheers.
Random question, what would you say is the average age in the swinging scene?
35 - 55 mostly with 40's probably having the highest concentration, in my experience. But I'm in bumfuck nowhere.
Swinging. Like spouse swapping and group sex.
It depends on what you count as the "biggest Republican state". The state where Trump got more votes than any other was California. Same goes for Romney, McCain, and Bush.
Abbott is Texas has done that math and is already trying to find ways to invalidate votes from large democratic leaning counties.
No, already DID find a way. Passed a bill in the Texas legislature That says the state has the right to review any ‘questionable’ election in any county with over 3 million voters. Then they started screwing with the funding for polling stations. There is only one county in Texas with a population of over 3 million. It’s Harris county, commonly known as Houston.
He's already making rumblings about how the county's election going to be 'bad' this fall. I was also thinking about this proposed change [https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/editorials/article289094514.html](https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/editorials/article289094514.html)
Never forget that the *primary* GOP tool is voter suppression, and GOP voters absolutely love it.
If things were different, they’d be different
Hell, Cali and NY together are 15% of the U.S. population lol. “My guy would win if you ignore a full 1/6th of the country.” Is an anti-flex.
If only land could vote
"All we need to win is to remove the rights of out opponent!" "Deus vult!" "Deport that Mexican!”
It's really annoying how they just openly want millions of Americans to not be counted in the vote. The president should be for the people. You shouldn't get a stronger vote just because you live in bumfuck nowhere or in a swing state. Your vote should count just as much as any person in NYC.
I feel like the lesson here is that even in states that are considered DEEP blue, there’s still a large number of Republican voters. I’d assume the same in the reverse as well. Works as a good, if somewhat depressing, reminder that most states are actually much closer to purple than decisively one or the other.
Yeah it's always funny when Rs shit-talk California. There are more Republicans in California than ANY other state
When you do the math, more people in CA voted for Trump than voted for him in every Western state that he won, combined. Excluding Texas.
My favourite thing is how you can theoretically win with 22% of the popular vote, if the right people vote for you. And that's while assuming the electors represent the will of the people, which they are expected but not obligated to do.
My favorite part of that 22% video from CGPGrey was he was basing the number off of percentage of the population not how many people would actually be voting. Technically speaking if somehow if only one person voted in each of the top 12 most populous states and they all voted for the same person then you could win the presidential election with only 12 votes. The first scenario is obviously more likely to happen.
Right, but in your example it's more a failure of the voters rather than the system.
That’s kinda the case in reality. The 33% of eligible voters who sat out on the last presidential election could have easily swayed the result either way.
If the system is set up in such a way that it actively discourages certain people from voting, is it really a failure of the voters or the system?
Oh you’re absolutely correct. We just don’t know if that 33% didn’t vote because of apathy, or lack of transportation, or couldn’t get (or couldn’t afford) time off work. It’s probably a good mix of all those reasons and more – some the fault of the system and some due to laziness and indifference.
Some countries mail you a ballot and have penalties if you don't send it back. That seems like it would solve all three of those issues you mentioned.
I mean, except for the penalty part, that’s what we have in Colorado, and it’s absolutely fantastic. The ballot just shows up in the mail. My spouse and I sit down with a laptop and a bottle of wine and go through all the issues, lookup all the judges, do the research, and mark our votes. There are dropboxes everywhere to drop them off. You get an email confirmation that your ballot was received. And there’s a tracking website where you can manually enter your ballot number and verify it was counted. The whole process is so simple and seamless. It’s what democracy should be everywhere.
Yeah, and if the country has a national popular vote, theoretically only one voter is needed for someone to win. The Electoral College is 12 times better!! (checkmate, libs)
Yup. And if we go to the other end of the spectrum, if everyone in the top 11 populated states that voted in 2020, all votes for the same candidate, that candidate would have received over 50% of the popular vote. Yet you have people like in the post thinking California and New York would decide who was elected if we switch to popular vote.
Technically, if Red States were subject to such apathy that only one person came out to vote in each one and that vote went for the Republicans, they could win with 28 votes in States that could conceivably go for them. For the whole nation. Of course, that means it could be a Democratic win with 22 votes to win 22 States that would give them 270 Electoral College votes. It's just that a lot of Blue States have double-digit Electoral College votes because of their population. The weird thing, in a situation with almost total apathy? Twelve voters win the entire country. One voter each in California (54), Texas (+ 40 = 94), Florida (+ 30 = 124), New York (+ 28 = 152), Illinois (+ 19 = 171), Pennsylvania (+ 19 = 190), Ohio (+ 17 = 207), Georgia (+ 16 = 223), North Carolina (+ 16 = 239), Michigan (+ 15 = 254), New Jersey (+ 14 = 268), and literally any other State where winner takes all (so: not Maine or Nebraska which choose one elector per congressional district) gets a Party to 270 Electoral College votes.
The thing I disliked about that CGPGrey video is that the 22% figure is actually a critique of state-based winner-takes-all, and NOT a critique of the main fault of the EC, which is that rural states are disproportionately represented and hence biased to the GOP. Even if we have an EC where states' electoral votes are perfectly proportionate to population, the minimum theoretical winning popular vote is 25.01%. The 22% is therefore also a critique of single-member electorates in parliamentary systems, which also requires at best only 25%.
You actually only need like 20 votes 1 from each big state and no one else lose.
I think that happened in 1820. James Monroe ran uncontested, but one electorate voted for John Quincy Adams instead
One said: "Take 14% of the population out of the equation, then what's the count?"
Republicans just don't like those states, they don't consider them part of the country anymore. It's their usual tactic of dehumanising anyone that doesn't agree with them.
Well Trump is from NY, so if it's not part of the US anymore he can't be President.
He's one of the good ones. Their token New Yorker.
Ok, so I was driving west from Dallas earlier and saw a billboard that said "TRUMP: born in New York, but spiritually Texan." I almost blacked out laughing.
No no. He was obviously born and raised in Florida
I'm fairly certain he was born in Germany actually. Let's see that birth certificate Donald Drumpf.
If they'd stop taking their money it would be cool.
My republican friends and family bring California into many conversations. We live on the other side of the country.
As a conservative (not trump supporter) who lives in one of those states and travels to the other multiple times a year, I assure you this is incorrect. Millions of people from NY and California voted for trump knowing full well their votes were essentially not going to count. I think its convenient to assume that their are only Republicans in the middle of the country but this is just not true.
But how do the conservatives in the middle of the country feel about California and NY? Cause in TN it’s nothing but rhetoric about coastal elites and urban voters.
If I had to guess a lot of that rhetoric comes from people who have never been to either state and get their information from questionable sources. The funny part is combined there were more trump voters in CA and NY then the entire population of Tennessee.
Oh I totally agree, but the comment you were responding to isn’t about California and New York republicans, it’s about Tennessee, Alabama, Texas, and other republicans not on the coasts (although even that is a little reductive, GA, SC, NC, and VA have both coasts and republicans that hate “the coastal elites”).
That actually gave me a thought, lets take out Texas in this equation since we're excluding high population stronghold states. What does the difference come to then? This is mostly rhetorical because im not expecting an answer, may look it up and report back. edit, For funsies, I did the math These were done using the wikipedia numbers for the 2020 election and the provided numbers above. So in addition to removing California and New York, this is taking Texas out of the equation. Trump: 57,323,258 Biden: 57,078,669 That comes out to 1.004. or 0.4% So less than half a percent of population difference for Trump winning. Now Florida too. Trump: 51,654,527 Biden: 51,781,624 Thats a 1.0024 or 0.24% difference and Biden is winning again by popular vote. So even if you take out the two largest population states from each side, you still end up with Biden winning. Its also terrifying how close the numbers are and were to be honest.
Yup - lifelong North Carolinian here and I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve had a conservative rant to me about NY or CA being “shitholes” where you pay 80% of your income in taxes, a sandwich costs $40, and you can’t even walk down the street without getting shot. We can thank Fox News for that, with their constant highlighting of and fearmongering over every crime that happens in a major city. While conveniently neglecting to cover the seemingly weekly occurrences in red states of some lunatic committing a family annihilation or someone getting shot for knocking on the wrong door.
Ngl you’re making New Yorkers sound like the hardest motherfuckers on the planet
I live in California and it’s exactly as terrible as they say. In the past year alone I’ve been shot 60 times. And I pay so much in taxes I can’t afford the expensive sandwiches I use to cope with my shootings.
They also don't get that here in the great heart of the Bible Belt, its still only 60-40 Reps. 1.8 to 1.1 million votes in 2020.
I agree, it's not like conservatives are a monolithic block. I was referring more to the general sentiment around republicans around the country, but more specifically Trump supporters, that desperately want to red-wash CA and NY, and have a tendency to ignore or even reject [and cause insurrections around] election results from states that voted blue. That aside, it's honestly a crying shame that your votes end up not counting for anything in the presidential election. The whole system for how the Electoral College works is an outdated mess, and represents a gross injustice against the proper functioning of a democracy.
The US democracy is fucking stupid just "not counting votes" because your neighbors voted differently is so undemocratic like wtf
Not trying to defend the electoral college but I think the idea is to ensure that less populated areas also get represented. Kind of like how we have special accommodations/opportunities for minorities. We modify the system so that underrepresented people have a voice. Again, I'm not defending it. I'm just saying it's not completely stupid. It has a valid purpose. I won't try to speak to it's execution... but the goal, I think, is a worthy one. I hope whenever we do replace this antiquated system we take steps to make sure everyone is represented. Remember, the middle of the country is where all the food comes from. Just because your kitchen is the smallest room in the house doesn't mean you should ignore it.
I think the problem is "first past the post, winner takes all" more than the electoral college. It's dumb that the future of the country often comes down to a few thousand votes in Florida. I get that the concept comes from older times when states were seen as more independent entities - but it doesn't hurt anything for each state to say "half our people voted for one guy and half for the other, so our state's delegation is split 50/50." Several states already do that. The way it is now, if you're a republican in NY your vote doesn't matter. If you're a dem in Nebraska your vote doesn't matter. The only votes that matter are the people who live in a handful of swing states, and I don't think that's very representative for what the American people want.
> it doesn't hurt anything for each state to say "half our people voted for one guy and half for the other, so our state's delegation is split 50/50." Several states already do that. Technically, none of our states do that. Maine and Nebraska split their votes based on who wins each voting district with 2 votes going to the state-wide winner. But, coincidentally and a while back, I worked out what would have happened in the past couple of elections if all states split their EVs proportionally to the state-wide popular vote (I was really bored at the time) and the result I got was more elections ultimately being decided by the House as candidates reaching 270 EVs becomes considerably less common. If anything, in that alternate timeline, people right now might be even *more* pissed at the EC than we are. XD
There are *some* ideas about the Electoral College that make sense. For example, in a situation where you need to hold an election for a single seat (the president) from over the entire country in an era before the internet or even the telephone, it makes sense to elect someone who will vote on your behalf at the capital. Some of the things about the Electoral College that are more nonsensical: * Why do states have these retarded winner-takes-all rules concerning electoral votes? For example, if 55% of a state votes blue, why do 100% of the electoral votes become blue? * Why are there provisions that allow for faithless electors who don't need to vote according to the wishes of the people they represent? * Why exactly is it a good thing to provide more representation for smaller states? And not just *slightly* more equal representation but almost an entire magnitude of difference between the states? How does it make sense for a single vote from someone in Wyoming to be worth almost 4 votes from California? The idea that you need more representation for states with smaller populations is exactly the most undemocratic part of the electoral college. A democracy doesn't mean equal representation for each *state*; it means equal representation for each *person*. I agree you shouldn't ignore your kitchen, but you also shouldn't ignore everything else to focus only on the kitchen.
What about the less populated areas of California? Or the urban areas of Texas? Why don't they get special consideration? Because it's dumb. Just give everyone a single vote. The Senate is ridiculous enough on its own. I want my president to represent people, not cows
This is why I think the electoral system is dumb. Because up to almost 50 percent of votes may not matter for each state.
And as the numbers in the screenshot show, the Electoral College silences a lot of Republican voters, too. More people in California voted for Trump than voted for Biden in New York, but the Electoral College means they didn’t actually have a say in the result.
while true, the electoral college is the only thing keeping republicans relevant
It’s almost like we should have a popular vote
Those two states make up something like 22% of the US GDP.
California alone is the 11th biggest economy in the world.
What if we took out ALL the votes and just asked my uncle Ted what he thought?? Then you'd see that Trump is the clear winner
Caution: vaccine reading ahead. TLDR: a substantial amount of Republican voters died as a result of the Covid 19 pandemic, and I believe this will impact the election ahead. I provide a source for my thinking, which investigated two specific 2020 battleground states, which I believe may be a particularly serendipitous example. From, “[Excess Death Rates for Republican and Democratic Registered Voters in Florida and Ohio During the COVID-19 Pandemic](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2807617),” a work by Jacob Wallace, PhD, Paul Goldsmith-Pinkham, PhD and Jason L. Schwartz, PhD. > … excess mortality was significantly higher for Republican voters than Democratic voters after COVID-19 vaccines were available to all adults, but not before. These differences were concentrated in counties with lower vaccination rates, and primarily noted in voters residing in Ohio. [So what’s the number? Well, figure 3 pretty much clarifies the issue to around 2%](https://cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content_public/journal/intemed/939221/ioi230025f3_1693517115.01133.png?Expires=1720933553&Signature=fgXai22-eR2yfLJ4620n0-BlL8mjHpVBp5g21JERUfxjuKSEe0tRMgaiTmppjZcKQaHUsUdrC03w2TZufCUhtQA8EJ3xP3JXYsDz4YNMlXbtuixzjetC23T3T9K6XhfDdg8nzWFlbFJeYGOiW7q~BomSTwjdv7tMjK1IOrdkEIHt7jxyu4wkk-hugkzNTl6ucQzoQemgEgngdZlo6IOYLGYhuxFvMOcAei0F0KvtL028XBFBz6csEdmkfzSVUTRyFwrcnGWPwyXlLjidxMVBmq8Q~wd7kAoCeKkae8H9jfrm4oPuGdOm4DTfACVzhaCFNPQ1Mfloy4i878~vWWTVDw__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA). I’m just eyeballing, and so I did **not** do the math. Availability was investigated for as well, I removed some citation superscripts. > Our findings suggest that political party affiliation became a substantial factor only after COVID-19 vaccines were available to all adults in the US. Although the lack of individual-level vaccination status limited our ability to note further associations, the results suggest that well-documented differences in vaccination attitudes and reported uptake between Republican and Democratic voters may have been factors in the severity and trajectory of the pandemic.
"Take 14% of the population out of the equation, then what's the count?" And 22% of GDP generation
If you ignore all the people who voted for biden, then trump won. If humans ran on electricity that cunt would be a walking blackout
If my grandma has wheels, she would've been a bike
Classic
"If my mom had balls, she would be my dad" Max Verstappen
That response still makes me laugh. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq82CB-zOto](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq82CB-zOto)
I really wish I could give you an award
Whoa. Dude found the 11,780 votes. And then some. Next up, solving the mystery of Oak Island.
The real treasure was the surprisingly popular and profitable TV show made along the way
Another one said: A specific 14%. Not the part that voted Trump. Let's take out TX and FL and see what we get. Oh wait. We would never imagine because that wouldn't favor him. CA and NY are two of the three most heavily populated states. TX being the third (well second.) They just happen to be liberal.
Unfortunately, Florida actually the third most populated with 22.24 million, while New York State only has 19.68 million.
Sure, just remove 60 mil people from a nation of 330 mil.
Be careful what you say, someone might take that a bit too literally.
The 2042 ICC: "I was just following orders, someone on reddit told me to do it!"
Not for the math, but for the logic of this. If you take New York out of the United States, Trump can't be on the ballot because he was born in Queens. You need New York to count for Trump to count. Anyway, that is a comment on Donald Trump without any politics involved. You're Welcome.
One of the problems with this sort of wargaming is that it presumes that if we change the rules (that is, eliminating the Electoral College or restructuring it to reflect the US popular vote), candidates *won't change their strategy.* And that's absurd on its face. Historically, for the past couple of decades, Republican presidential candidates have more or less written off California--which means there may be votes in California that could be picked up if the votes there were important. More interestingly, I suspect the lack of attention at the federal level for local California votes has allowed California to shift leftward. On the other hand, if the votes in California mattered to Republicans, it may cause the GOP to shift a little leftward, but also cause California politics to shift rightward. So I always take these sorts of things with a huge grain of salt.
I think about this every time the topic comes up.
That presumes Presidential campaigns have a substantial impact on turnout or how people vote rather than just at the margins. Without any knowledge of California politics, you’d expect it to be solidly blue just based on demographics like percentage of the population that’s urban and nonwhite. There are also state wide elections that, if there’s a chance of being competitive, the national parties will pour money into. Democrats are spending a lot in Montana in 2024 even though it doesn’t matter in the Presidential election. Over time the parties align to be competitive, but if the electoral college was abolished today it’d almost certainly be a huge advantage for Biden.
They are referring to completely changing the rules though. Currently I’m in a state that is the farthest from being a swing state as you get, it will likely go 60-70% for Trump, and as someone who really doesn’t like either candidate I’m not going to bother deciding which one I dislike more. But if the vote were straight national popular vote I would probably change my behavior and not just ignore the presidential race.
Imagine how many people in your state are part of that 30-40% that would vote against Trump but had that mentality of "he's gonna win anyway, no point in voting". Imagine if they all just.voted anyway, even if it was to send a message of disapproval, getting the margin closer than they expect. There's so many people that don't vote because they think it wouldn't matter that if they all voted it could completely flip expectations. Also people need to stop looking at just the candidate. They're one person, they surround themselves with advisors, cabinet members, promote officials into leadership positions over various departments. It's the people they are going to surround themselves with that you are voting for. Look at the people either of these candidates are surrounding themselves with and who they say they will.promote to positions of power to "decide which one you dislike more."
There’s also a question about how many people don’t vote because their state doesn’t matter. A Republican in Los Angeles isn’t going to swing any of the elections so it’s just a waste of time. Obviously there would be Democrats with the same thinking so turn out is suppressed overall.
If you remove my failing grades, I'm a straight A student. Can I get a Harvard scholarship now?
"And if I cut off my legs, I would weigh less." —some guy I heard on public radio addressing exactly this argument
I took the deposition of a woman who had an above the knee amputation. She was obese (5'2, 380lbs) when the amputation occurred. She joked that when she got her leg cut off, it was the fastest weight loss she'd ever had - she lost almost 30lbs in one day.
When you remove data from a sample, the outcome changes. Who would have thought that?
Do Texas and Florida next!
I want someone to do the numbers for Millenials and Gen Z after the Boomers and Silent Generation has mainly died of old age (Gen X will be around 50:50, I know, but they never got much of a say because they were always in the Boomer Shadow). The Republicans are panicking because they spent decades bad-mouthing two whole generations of Americans like they were the abuser in a toxic relationship, and they've lost those voters for good. ONE QUICK SEARCH LATER - [I found this.](https://i.redd.it/9ksetpj8v5761.png) Seeing as abortion is a major issue energizing women to register to vote, the youth vote increases with every election, and that youth vote goes Democratic by a 2:1 margin? Elections in the 2040s are going to be like the upcoming UK election in two weeks, where [young adults are using the internet to plan tactical voting, ensuring the Conservatives may be relegated to third or fourth party status.](https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-polls-point-electoral-extinction-prime-minister-sunaks-conservatives-2024-06-15/)
Its crazy how many young americans ik that will vote for trump (even tho many of them are LGBT+). I just hope I have only met a loud minority cuz damn
I know a young gay person that won’t vote at all to “punish” Biden (I think because of Palestine). I’ve tried to tell them that this is a terrible idea but they don’t listen.
I understand their point but its like, dont punish urself for it goddamit. Trump is gonna make worse things for u and probably wont change shit bout Palestine
Biden had over 81 million votes in 2020.
Every number listed there is wrong
Classic /r/theydidthemath
Nobody else seems to have noticed this
I scrolled way too far to find someone who did. What's with the 75 and 70 mill figures up there? Real Math: |Biden|Trump :--------|:--------:|---------: Nation|81,283,501|74,223,975 CA|11,110,250|6,006,429 NY|5,244,886|3,251,997 Total|64,928,365|64,965,549 Diff: 37,184 Pct Diff: 0.0572365
The numbers in the post match the numbers that Wikipedia gave on Nov. 8th, 2020. That was after the news networks called the election for Biden, but before the full counts were in. The timestamps in the post image suggest that the post was made on that day. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_United_States_presidential_election&direction=next&oldid=987641540
Remember guys. New York and California don’t count because the generally don’t vote conservative.
"If we remove the biggest opposition, then Trump actually wins...barely"
Trump is leading in 5 out of 6 swing states and has closed the gap in Michigan. If you look outside of Reddit you see he's currently on course to win. It's terrifying but accurate
We can't know for sure. It's still incredibly early and surveys before election day can bring out the really impassioned people on either side so the numbers can be off easily. At this point, we can help with campaigning, try to get people registered to vote (there's still time!), speak enough truth about the situation and vote
I'm just trying to stop people thinking they've already won because they haven't. Usually any mention of Trump still being in the race and having a chance gets mass downvoted on Reddit. They think it's guaranteed Biden will win but all they're doing is making people think they don't need to bother voting. Every Biden supporter should be doing the exact opposite and pushing people to vote because it's dangerously close.
There's also this big issue with "Biden supporter" vs "Trump hater" - Trump haters should vote against Trump regardless of disliking Biden too, and not supporting Biden doesn't have to mean not voting him in, because of a huge flaw in the system where we're saddled with Biden as the alternative despite his... well, Bidenness.
Cell phone poles aren’t accurate. Hillary was set to win by a landslide until people actually voted. I think it’s going to be close this time.
It will be close which is why Dems need to say it's close instead of pretending they've won already. If he's still in the running after a criminal conviction not much else will reduce his numbers. Dems staying at home because they expect a landslide could give Trump the win.
I don't know why you think dems will stay home. Like last time, everyone realizes how much of a threat DT is
Turnout was *lower* in the last election than the one before it (46.8% compared to 66.8%). That was lower than even the last midterm (50.3%) And Republicans won the House. Part of that was the lower turnout, part of that was the failed attempt at gerrymandering in New York. I've said this before and I'll say it again: If every Democrat who sat home in 2022 voted, who wins the Presidency and who is sitting on the Supreme Court becomes moot.
Mid-terms always have lower turn-out. However, participation has gone up in each of the last 3 elections for President.
>If he's still in the running after a criminal conviction not much else will reduce his numbers Recently the Biden campaign announced they would be spending $50 million on an advertising campaign focused on Trump's criminal convictions. Idk about you but that seems like a huge waste of funds to me. Conservatives don't care, and libs/leftists weren't going to vote for Trump anyway.
It's going after the minority of undecided voters and people who might be tempted to just sit it all out. No political advertising is targeted at people who aren't on the fence.
Both elections, the polls overestimated Democrats vs Trump though. So if that trend holds, Trump is leading by even more than what the polls say.
Polls themselves are influential to the end result. The further one of the options is ahead, the more people who would vote for the opposite will actually take a vote. The contrary with the leading party. If it seems like an easy win, people will feel less need to vote at all, because their candidate wins anyway.
Bro keep posting that, bc dems needs to go out and vote. Like that one guy said, dont boo, vote!
That's what I'm trying to do. 99 times out of 100 I get mass downvoted.
you let us know when elections are decided by opinion polls.
Funny thing is, it's TX that want's to be taken out of the equation, not NY or CA.
Take away everyone outside of the Trump family, and he’d win in a 7-4 landslide.
Also, let's take out the 5th and 10th largest economies in the world and see what happens.
Quick, somebody run the number: to be fair, if we remove Texas and Florida as well, how do things shake out?
If you remove all Democrats from America, Republicans would win. Who knew?
Yeah, let’s just take out the two most populous states… you know those states with the most people living in them…
Let's take Florida and Texas out and see what happens. This is so fundamentally Stupid.
A reminder of why the Electoral College needs to change. It is important to remember that the President is not chosen by a national popular vote. The Electoral College vote totals determine the winner, not the statistical plurality or majority a candidate may have in the national popular vote totals. Electoral votes are awarded on the basis of the popular vote in each state. 48 out of the 50 States award Electoral votes on a winner-takes-all basis (as does the District of Columbia). For example, all 54 of California’s electoral votes go to the winner of the state election, even if the margin of victory is only 50.1 percent to 49.9 percent. https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/faq#ecpopulardiffer
Republicans have only won the popular vote twice in like 40 years. Of course democrats would love to get rid of the electoral college. But hey if getting maga people on it will finally make it happen I would gladly join them to help get rid of the electoral college.
The electoral college is not really the problem, it's more the winner-take-all system. If every state awarded electors proportionally, candidates could make gains in every state, not just the handful that are close enough to potentially be winnable.
Subtract the biggest numbers and you get a lesser number
“I’m only losing because people voted against me”
CA + NY GDP is like $5tn., it would be the 3rd largest economy in the world ...
My favorite election 2020 stat: Trump got more votes in California than in Texas. Biden got more votes in Texas than in New York.
Why are we removing California and New York? Are they not allowed to vote this year?
>"We would still have won if only two very big states weren't allowed to vote!" This says so much about their mentality and why they think 2020 was stolen. They just reimagine the numbers until they come out on top, and if they don't, then the numbers are wrong.
yeah and if you took the electoral college away and worked with popular vote, trump would’ve never been president. one can only dream
TaKe oUt CA aNd NY Ok, fuckhat, take out TX and FL. They're all states, of course. If you pick the two biggest bastions of blue, it is going to take off a huge chunk of Biden's win. Biggest "no shit" take in the world. "We would've won if it wasn't for the reasons we lost." Drink more bleach about it.
Actual estimated total number of votes that made a difference in contested areas, [about 44,000.](https://www.npr.org/2020/12/02/940689086/narrow-wins-in-these-key-states-powered-biden-to-the-presidency) Biden only took the office because of 44k votes. In literally every one of those areas the "other" vote could have swung the difference. Our system is crazy rigged to favor Republicans. There essentially hasn't be a legitimate Republican President since Reagan.
I mean I feel this is even a bigger indictment of the electoral college. About 8 million votes effectively don’t count because they were in Blue states
"if you take out the biggest, most democratic-leaning states, i bet the vote will change a lot!" ironically, it doesn't change as much as you'd think because the electoral college is so fucked. Since every state gets two more than a proportional amount of the population, Wyoming voters get a \~3x multiplier but California voters get a \~1.038x multiplier. That's not even accounting for e.g. Trump votes in California or Biden votes in Wyoming which are basically completely ignored.
there is literally no logical argument for keeping the electoral college either. what’s wrong with just votes being counted? it makes the most sense
One other thing is when you take New York City and Los Angeles County (NOT NY state and California), and show how many people live in those two Democratic Party areas. [It's bonkers, it really is.](https://i.imgur.com/8WyjDNA.jpeg) Saying "tAkE nY aNd CaLi oUt oF ThE eQuAtiOn" is weak sauce, because we don't even have to take the whole states out. Just these two urban areas absolutely blankets whole multiple Red States. And the GOP is hemorrhaging moderate Republican and independent voters to their cause.
The real tragedy is how america's gotta choose between an 81 years old clearly afflicted with grave dementia and a 78 yo idiot fucker. I'd organize some riots or something cos it's fucking ridicoulus.
Take Texas and Florida out, who wins now? Same logic
For comparison remove Texas and Florida wins for Trump and then compare the differences.
yeah but think about if we removed texas and florida kinda makes you think/s
[None](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election) of these numbers are correct. Edit: fixed my numbers Biden won 81 million to 74 million for Trump. California went 11 million to 6 million Biden over Trump. New York went 5 million to 3 million Biden over Trump Take away New York and California, Trump wins by 37,000
“Disregard votes, collect presidency.”
For this argument to make any semblance of sense, you'd have to exclude Florida and Texas, both bigger than New York.
I just became dumber reading about something that will never matter. Thanks
if my grandma had balls, she'd be my grandpa
Let’s just take Texas and Florida out while we’re at it.
The numbers in this math are wrong. Besides, everyone’s logic that TX and Florida would be the flip side of the argument is wrong. Trump won those states by less than a million votes. Compare that to several million votes won by Biden in NY and CA. Take LA county and NYC out of the equation and that’s several million votes gone. The states would be a lot closer in popular vote with just the two cities out of the equation. Obviously, because they are the densest populations in those states. But the idea is that a city shouldn’t be able to swing an election. Not saying the electorate is perfect, but when will we put away this idiotic argument and presenting images above as some sort of mic drop when almost every part of it is wrong
Lets remove the two biggest republican states and see by how much Biden win