The Race For 2024

[Jimmy Higgins]

But I can still express an opinion, right?

Sure, but how you are expressing it is definitely presenting a notably different angle on your opinion.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Has this been mentioned yet? I didn't see anything about it. How pivotal is WI? Is it really considered a swing state?

It is, but congressional districts play no role in presidential elections (except in ME and NE).

I agree that gerrymandering should be done away with. Next, how about Illinois?

Actually, I read that district is actually not remotely as gerrymandered as it appears (and it certainly appears to be). It is a minority district, I think Latino.

You wanna talk gerrymander, check out Ohio. We had the non-contingous Toledo to Cleveland district that got one road wide at parts as well. Then in 2020 they made it even worse, so worse, even the Conservative controlled state Supreme Court said it was too gerrymandered (barely). So they stepped it back a notch. Oddly enough, the GOP lost two seats and the Dems gained one in the Mid-terms. My district was gerrymandered in 2010, and then regerrymandered. They had GOP AOC as the candidate. Medina county wasn't enough for her to win.

Seriously, when the Dems win in a landslide in the House, their majority is smaller than when the Republicans win in a landslide. That tells you all you need to know about who gerrymanders the most. If California gerrymandered like Texas, the House would look quite a bit different.

 

[Rhea]

Until the gerrymander is outklawed, (and it should be, IMO), then the Opposition party must gerrymander in states they control to counteract the seats taken away by gerrymander in other states. It would be negligent to just let an anti-democrtacy party take without fighting.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Here is what they tried to pull off. You'll see Toledo is drowned with just enough rural counties. They split Summit County (Akron) and merged a good deal of liberal Summit County with conservative Medina county. They trimmed Cuyahoga County three ways, to try and make it just one seat for Democrats, despite having Cleveland there. Columbus was snipped down and diluted, to try and make that one seat as well.

The adopted map, not that much better:

They tried to drown Cuyahoga and Summit Counties with more rural Stark, Medina, and Wayne Counties. Toledo was still drowned out, but not by enough. And the Dems won 13 as well. Districts 7 and 15 are fucking insane, with a ton of rural territory merged with Cuyahoga / Franklin territory.

The Dems took 1, 3, 9, 11, and 13. 9 was a +3 R district.

 

[Worldtraveller]

The irony that the (f)rightwing won't admit to is that all the states with fair (non-partisan, using some sort of process instead of politics) districting are all Dem.

 

[Elixir]

The irony that the (f)rightwing won't admit to is that all the states with fair (non-partisan, using some sort of process instead of politics) districting are all Dem.

Seems like anything fair, favors Democrats. Is that unfair, considering that Democrats are the majority?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Has this been mentioned yet? I didn't see anything about it. How pivotal is WI? Is it really considered a swing state?

It is, but congressional districts play no role in presidential elections (except in ME and NE).

I agree that gerrymandering should be done away with. Next, how about Illinois?

Actually, I read that district is actually not remotely as gerrymandered as it appears (and it certainly appears to be). It is a minority district, I think Latino.

Just because it's gerrymandered to make a minority-majority district doesn't make it not gerrymandered.

 

[Tigers!]

Here is what they tried to pull off. You'll see Toledo is drowned with just enough rural counties. They split Summit County (Akron) and merged a good deal of liberal Summit County with conservative Medina county. They trimmed Cuyahoga County three ways, to try and make it just one seat for Democrats, despite having Cleveland there. Columbus was snipped down and diluted, to try and make that one seat as well.

The adopted map, not that much better:

They tried to drown Cuyahoga and Summit Counties with more rural Stark, Medina, and Wayne Counties. Toledo was still drowned out, but not by enough. And the Dems won 13 as well. Districts 7 and 15 are fucking insane, with a ton of rural territory merged with Cuyahoga / Franklin territory.

The Dems took 1, 3, 9, 11, and 13. 9 was a +3 R district.

Why do you yanks always try to make a simple process harder?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Our exceptionalism knows no bounds.

 

[Politesse]

Why do you yanks always try to make a simple process harder?

If the system is too simple, you can't grift it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

What’s a BETTER alternative than voting for Biden?
What will YOU do?

I know my vote won't change anything. I know this even though I was told my 3rd party vote in California is the reason Hillary lost in 2016.

Since my vote won't change anything, I have no reason to hold my nose and select a lesser evil. I'm voting 3rd party again.

 

[Copernicus]

What’s a BETTER alternative than voting for Biden?
What will YOU do?

I know my vote won't change anything. I know this even though I was told my 3rd party vote in California is the reason Hillary lost in 2016.

Since my vote won't change anything, I have no reason to hold my nose and select a lesser evil. I'm voting 3rd party again.

This is why it would make more sense to elect presidents by a popular nationwide vote rather than have 50 states send electors to Washington DC. A lot more people would take the election more seriously, if they thought their vote was going to matter in the end.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

What’s a BETTER alternative than voting for Biden?
What will YOU do?

I know my vote won't change anything. I know this even though I was told my 3rd party vote in California is the reason Hillary lost in 2016.

Since my vote won't change anything, I have no reason to hold my nose and select a lesser evil. I'm voting 3rd party again.

This is why it would make more sense to elect presidents by a popular nationwide vote rather than have 50 states send electors to Washington DC

My vote still wouldn't have changed anything.

 

[Copernicus]

What’s a BETTER alternative than voting for Biden?
What will YOU do?

I know my vote won't change anything. I know this even though I was told my 3rd party vote in California is the reason Hillary lost in 2016.

Since my vote won't change anything, I have no reason to hold my nose and select a lesser evil. I'm voting 3rd party again.

This is why it would make more sense to elect presidents by a popular nationwide vote rather than have 50 states send electors to Washington DC

My vote still wouldn't have changed anything.

I was thinking more about how you framed the significance of voting in California. A popular vote isn't about guaranteeing change, but your vote might be different in an election where it could affect the election outcome. The fact is that, barring unusual circumstances, you only have two choices--Biden or Trump. Voting won't change that, and not voting won't change it either. Hence, a vote for a third party candidate is equivalent to not voting at all. You live in California, where many conservative libertarians may prefer not to bother voting at all. So your impact in that state is diminished even further. I know libertarians in Michigan that plan to vote for Biden, not the Libertarian candidate, because voting for the so-called "lesser evil" makes more sense there. The election will be much closer, and it could determine the outcome of the national election. Your vote in California doesn't make any difference, because California is sure to give all of its electors to Biden anyway.

 

[TomC]

My vote still wouldn't have changed anything.

As much as any other of the millions of votes.
Which is currently not the case due to the EC and the strangle hold the two parties have on the results.

Your third party vote is, effectively, a vote for whoever wins amongst the two dominant parties. Same as not voting is.

That's probably what whoever told you that your vote cost Clinton the election meant, since it was obvious long before the election that she'd win all the EC delegates from California. Just like in some other states it was obvious that Trump would get them all, like my state of Indiana

Tom

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

What’s a BETTER alternative than voting for Biden?
What will YOU do?

I know my vote won't change anything. I know this even though I was told my 3rd party vote in California is the reason Hillary lost in 2016.

Since my vote won't change anything, I have no reason to hold my nose and select a lesser evil. I'm voting 3rd party again.

This is why it would make more sense to elect presidents by a popular nationwide vote rather than have 50 states send electors to Washington DC

My vote still wouldn't have changed anything.

I was thinking more about how you framed the significance of voting in California. A popular vote isn't about guaranteeing change, but your vote might be different in an election where it could affect the election outcome. The fact is that, barring unusual circumstances, you only have two choices--Biden or Trump. Voting won't change that, and not voting won't change it either. Hence, a vote for a third party candidate is equivalent to not voting at all. You live in California, where many conservative libertarians may prefer not to bother voting at all. So your impact in that state is diminished even further. I know libertarians in Michigan that plan to vote for Biden, not the Libertarian candidate, because voting for the so-called "lesser evil" makes more sense there. The election will be much closer, and it could determine the outcome of the national election. Your vote in California doesn't make any difference, because California is sure to give all of its electors to Biden anyway.

The vote spread between the two candidates is sufficiently large that there's no way mathematically that my vote makes a difference under either system.

 

[ZiprHead]

The vote spread between the two candidates is sufficiently large that there's no way mathematically that my vote makes a difference under either system.

You're not the only vote that might make a difference though. Imagine if everyone thought their vote wouldn't make a difference.

 

[Copernicus]

The vote spread between the two candidates is sufficiently large that there's no way mathematically that my vote makes a difference under either system.

You're not the only vote that might make a difference though. Imagine if everyone thought their vote wouldn't make a difference.

In fact, a huge number of Americans think their vote doesn't matter in the presidential election because of the electoral system and the way states skew the demographics. If every Democrat in a red state and every Republican in a blue state thought that their votes mattered, we would have a national population much more interested in the election. The numbers of Americans voting would be much higher across the country, and that would also have an impact on Senate, House, and state elections in presidential election years. It is galling to think that this stupid idea of having state-picked electors to choose a president only exists because of the slavery issue in the late 18th century. Without it, they would never have ratified the Constitution in all thirteen states. Now we're still stuck with it.

 

[Rhea]

What’s a BETTER alternative than voting for Biden?
What will YOU do?

I know my vote won't change anything. I know this even though I was told my 3rd party vote in California is the reason Hillary lost in 2016.

Since my vote won't change anything, I have no reason to hold my nose and select a lesser evil. I'm voting 3rd party again.

Hey, you could do one of those vote-trading things, where you tell an Ohio voter that you’ll do 3rd party if they’ll do Democratic.

 

[Rhea]

The vote spread between the two candidates is sufficiently large that there's no way mathematically that my vote makes a difference under either system.

Oh, well, because there are so many who are not thinking as you you. If 200,000 all agreed with you, that would no longer be true.