5 ms·

The idea is that Republicans are a numeric minority, because all the densely populated cities are Democratic and thus the population majority of America is Demo

The idea is that Republicans are a numeric minority, because all the densely populated cities are Democratic and thus the population majority of America is Democratic. However the US isn't a population based democracy, so Republicans hold all majority power in all the branches of government because they have the widest geographical coverage of any political party. Is this good or bad? Well.... hypothetical question. If we had a democratic world government, would it be good or bad that China and India combined would have majority power by virtue of population alone? Are the issues of a far away land more virtuous just for the sheer size of the population there? It can be argued yea or nay---but balancing geography over population is the way the US was designed, without that compromise the less populous colonies would never have agreed to join the union.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
paulddraper 10y ago
> the US isn't a population based democracy Incorrect. Population corresponds to representation at national and state levels. This is enforced with a Constitutional base. "One person, one vote" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims
- jrockway 10y ago
  > "One person, one vote" So how come Trump's President? (It's because "one person" gets "one vote" for an elector. But some people get more electors than others, and electors vote for the President, not individual voters.)
  - mwfunk 10y ago
    Yep. There are a lot of things in the US political system that give states with lower populations more representation per capita than states with greater populations, and the electoral college is one of them and perhaps the most egregious, given that we're long past the time when it made sense to fear that US presidents would prioritize their home state over the country, if that was ever a concern. The Senate is the most extreme example- every state gets two Senators. So Rhode Island and Wyoming have just as much representation in the Senate as California and Texas, despite having ~30x the population. Of course that's the whole point of the Senate, to counterbalance the representation-by-population of the House to avoid a tyranny by the majority. We may have worked ourselves into a tyranny by the minority at this point though. :( Even the more egalitarian House somewhat overrepresents the more sparsely populated states, although it probably doesn't make nearly as much of a difference in practice. States get a number of representatives based on population, but every state gets at least one representative, so you have the case of (for example) Wyoming having one representative for its 600,000 people, but Texas ends up having one representative per ~800,000 people. Of course, Wyoming has one rep total and Texas has 36 of them, so I don't think Wyoming will be outvoting Texas anytime soon, but still.
    - rrauenza 10y ago
      > Even the more egalitarian House somewhat overrepresents the more sparsely populated states, [...] And then add gerrymandering to that!
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > Even the more egalitarian House somewhat overrepresents the more sparsely populated states "Sparse" isn't exactly true, since it's population not density that drives it. And, because of granularity effects, it's not consistently bigger states that lose in the House; the most underrepresented state in the House is also a small state (Delaware.) Because of the 2/state Senate electors, though, it's consistently more populated states that lose in the EC.
  - rrauenza 10y ago
    We should keep in mind as well that the campaigns play the game they are given -- to maximize electoral votes. There is an opportunity cost (the popular vote) to only campaigning in the swing states. For example, a large number of Hillary's popular vote was claimed in California. Trump didn't campaign much in California. One could argue if Trump spent more time in California (which he strategically did not), Hillary's popular vote lead wouldn't be as high. I think its culturally important that Trump didn't get the popular vote, but it's also a little like playing a game of chess, losing, and then decrying "but I took more pawns!" That wasn't the agreed upon rules of the game.
    - paulddraper 10y ago
      Not only that, but no candidate got a majority of the popular vote in 2016. If you wanted to elect by majority vote (as is currently done with the electoral college), we'd have to do a run-off to determine the actual popular vote winner.
    - filoeleven 10y ago
      > I think its culturally important that Trump didn't get the popular vote, but it's also a little like playing a game of chess, losing, and then decrying "but I took more pawns!" There are certainly such complaints coming from those who voted against him, but it's also worth noting that by far the biggest sore loser is Trump himself. He has insisted that the only reason he failed to win the popular vote is due to voter fraud, and not due to a brilliantly-executed campaign strategy by his staff. They knew how to get the electoral votes, and they went out and got them. But instead of being thrilled to have the office and focusing all effort on his agenda, he had his press secretary defend his delusional idea that he won on the merits of being the most popular, and then doubled down and claimed widespread voter fraud in the states he didn't need to win. It's worth noting because it shows how divorced the reality of fitness for the office is from the ability to gain the office. We have known this for a long time--almost everyone acknowledges that absent an extremely fortunate turn of circumstances one cannot become president--but I don't think there has been in at least a century here (and probably longer) such a stark negative example.
      - 10y ago
  - paulddraper 10y ago
    Trump is NOT president because some people get more electors than others. If you're talking about the slight disproportion in the electoral college, that didn't matter. Trump was 74 electoral votes ahead his closest opponent. Removing two electoral votes for Trump's extra 10ish states doesn't matter. Theoretically it could matter, but 2016 wasn't close enough. Trump won because some states have chosen to elect their electors so that they all vote for one candidate.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

paulddraper 10y ago

> the US isn't a population based democracy Incorrect. Population corresponds to representation at national and state levels. This is enforced with a Constitutional base. "One person, one vote" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims

jrockway 10y ago
> "One person, one vote" So how come Trump's President? (It's because "one person" gets "one vote" for an elector. But some people get more electors than others, and electors vote for the President, not individual voters.)
- mwfunk 10y ago
  Yep. There are a lot of things in the US political system that give states with lower populations more representation per capita than states with greater populations, and the electoral college is one of them and perhaps the most egregious, given that we're long past the time when it made sense to fear that US presidents would prioritize their home state over the country, if that was ever a concern. The Senate is the most extreme example- every state gets two Senators. So Rhode Island and Wyoming have just as much representation in the Senate as California and Texas, despite having ~30x the population. Of course that's the whole point of the Senate, to counterbalance the representation-by-population of the House to avoid a tyranny by the majority. We may have worked ourselves into a tyranny by the minority at this point though. :( Even the more egalitarian House somewhat overrepresents the more sparsely populated states, although it probably doesn't make nearly as much of a difference in practice. States get a number of representatives based on population, but every state gets at least one representative, so you have the case of (for example) Wyoming having one representative for its 600,000 people, but Texas ends up having one representative per ~800,000 people. Of course, Wyoming has one rep total and Texas has 36 of them, so I don't think Wyoming will be outvoting Texas anytime soon, but still.
  - rrauenza 10y ago
    > Even the more egalitarian House somewhat overrepresents the more sparsely populated states, [...] And then add gerrymandering to that!
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Even the more egalitarian House somewhat overrepresents the more sparsely populated states "Sparse" isn't exactly true, since it's population not density that drives it. And, because of granularity effects, it's not consistently bigger states that lose in the House; the most underrepresented state in the House is also a small state (Delaware.) Because of the 2/state Senate electors, though, it's consistently more populated states that lose in the EC.
- rrauenza 10y ago
  We should keep in mind as well that the campaigns play the game they are given -- to maximize electoral votes. There is an opportunity cost (the popular vote) to only campaigning in the swing states. For example, a large number of Hillary's popular vote was claimed in California. Trump didn't campaign much in California. One could argue if Trump spent more time in California (which he strategically did not), Hillary's popular vote lead wouldn't be as high. I think its culturally important that Trump didn't get the popular vote, but it's also a little like playing a game of chess, losing, and then decrying "but I took more pawns!" That wasn't the agreed upon rules of the game.
  - paulddraper 10y ago
    Not only that, but no candidate got a majority of the popular vote in 2016. If you wanted to elect by majority vote (as is currently done with the electoral college), we'd have to do a run-off to determine the actual popular vote winner.
  - filoeleven 10y ago
    > I think its culturally important that Trump didn't get the popular vote, but it's also a little like playing a game of chess, losing, and then decrying "but I took more pawns!" There are certainly such complaints coming from those who voted against him, but it's also worth noting that by far the biggest sore loser is Trump himself. He has insisted that the only reason he failed to win the popular vote is due to voter fraud, and not due to a brilliantly-executed campaign strategy by his staff. They knew how to get the electoral votes, and they went out and got them. But instead of being thrilled to have the office and focusing all effort on his agenda, he had his press secretary defend his delusional idea that he won on the merits of being the most popular, and then doubled down and claimed widespread voter fraud in the states he didn't need to win. It's worth noting because it shows how divorced the reality of fitness for the office is from the ability to gain the office. We have known this for a long time--almost everyone acknowledges that absent an extremely fortunate turn of circumstances one cannot become president--but I don't think there has been in at least a century here (and probably longer) such a stark negative example.
    - 10y ago
- paulddraper 10y ago
  Trump is NOT president because some people get more electors than others. If you're talking about the slight disproportion in the electoral college, that didn't matter. Trump was 74 electoral votes ahead his closest opponent. Removing two electoral votes for Trump's extra 10ish states doesn't matter. Theoretically it could matter, but 2016 wasn't close enough. Trump won because some states have chosen to elect their electors so that they all vote for one candidate.