4 ms·

>the issues that Americans considered at the national level would be very strongly dominated by the concerns of the most populous urban centers, which would lea

by jpfed 10y ago

>the issues that Americans considered at the national level would be very strongly dominated by the concerns of the most populous urban centers, which would lead to even more fractiousness between urban areas and "flyover" areas. This is a common sentiment. I'm curious about what you think about the following question: Let's say we order cities from most populous to least populous. How many cities would we need to add together to get to roughly 50% of the population? Bonus points for putting down a guess before doing the math and checking.

memmcgee 10y ago
I guessed about a 100 and that's a little low. Half the US lives in the top 146 biggest counties. http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-lives-in-these-counties-2013-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-liv...
- grandalf 10y ago
  There are a few places where the split into counties obscures the contiguity of the population, such as greater NYC (the five boroughs, part of NJ, etc.) and greater SF (includes Oakland, Berkeley, etc., down to San Jose). The same is true in the greater DC area and greater LA area. Once you merge those into virtual counties, the number of counties is a lot lower.
  - jpfed 10y ago
    And, of course, there are places where the county's reach exceeds the city's. For example, the city of Milwaukee is deep blue, but Milwaukee County elects Sheriff Clarke.
grandalf 10y ago
> How many cities would we need to add together to get to roughly 50% of the population? While this is an interesting question, it's not the one that we should ask: Instead, what is the lowest number of flights a candidate needs to take to visit a majority of the voters' nearby area? If the candidate can drive for under three hours to arrive at another area, the trip does not qualify for a flight. See these links for the map visuals supporting this line of reasoning: http://www.arbesman.net/blog/2011/02/02/the-city-states-of-america/ http://www.arbesman.net/blog/2011/02/02/the-city-states-of-a... and https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/opinion/sunday/a-new-map-for-america.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/opinion/sunday/a-new-map-... A popular vote system decreases the number of flights substantially compared to the EC system, and would make much of the US utterly irrelevant in a national election. The EC system was created to prevent this from happening. Also, flights are a proxy for overall campaign spending. A popular vote system would reward spending on the most populous visits and (compared to the EC system) penalize visits to the least populous areas.

by jpfed 10y ago

memmcgee 10y ago

I guessed about a 100 and that's a little low. Half the US lives in the top 146 biggest counties. http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-lives-in-these-counties-2013-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-liv...

grandalf 10y ago
There are a few places where the split into counties obscures the contiguity of the population, such as greater NYC (the five boroughs, part of NJ, etc.) and greater SF (includes Oakland, Berkeley, etc., down to San Jose). The same is true in the greater DC area and greater LA area. Once you merge those into virtual counties, the number of counties is a lot lower.
- jpfed 10y ago
  And, of course, there are places where the county's reach exceeds the city's. For example, the city of Milwaukee is deep blue, but Milwaukee County elects Sheriff Clarke.

grandalf 10y ago

> How many cities would we need to add together to get to roughly 50% of the population? While this is an interesting question, it's not the one that we should ask: Instead, what is the lowest number of flights a candidate needs to take to visit a majority of the voters' nearby area? If the candidate can drive for under three hours to arrive at another area, the trip does not qualify for a flight. See these links for the map visuals supporting this line of reasoning: http://www.arbesman.net/blog/2011/02/02/the-city-states-of-america/ http://www.arbesman.net/blog/2011/02/02/the-city-states-of-a... and https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/opinion/sunday/a-new-map-for-america.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/opinion/sunday/a-new-map-... A popular vote system decreases the number of flights substantially compared to the EC system, and would make much of the US utterly irrelevant in a national election. The EC system was created to prevent this from happening. Also, flights are a proxy for overall campaign spending. A popular vote system would reward spending on the most populous visits and (compared to the EC system) penalize visits to the least populous areas.