4 ms·

Your second sentence does not serve the argument against because it can be just as arbitrarily purposed for the opposite. That dense cities with packed schools

Your second sentence does not serve the argument against because it can be just as arbitrarily purposed for the opposite. That dense cities with packed schools and omnipresent media make it more efficient to sway them with "misinformation".

mattnewton 6y ago
No, you have to convince more people in dense cities to get the same voting power, because of the electoral college. At the extreme, you have to convince 3.6 people in california to have the same electoral vote impact as convincing just one voter in Wyoming, and that’s before taking into account that being a winner take all system in most states, you have to influence up to half of California in the worst case, before getting any return on investment. https://www.thestreet.com/personal-finance/how-much-voting-power-do-you-really-have-in-your-state https://www.thestreet.com/personal-finance/how-much-voting-p... You would have to make the argument that people in cities are cheaper per capita to convince, because of their density; cheap enough to offset these massive differences in electoral power. I don’t buy it, as dense cities have the most expensive media markets and modern internet advertising can easily target rural areas.
- masonic 6y ago
  You don't have to influence any of California, which is essentially a 1-party state for statewide elections. California hasn't elected a Republican to the US Senate in 32+ years.
  - jhayward 6y ago
    What is your point, and how is it relevant?
  - mattnewton 6y ago
    I guess this just proves my point? Because of the electoral college Californian republicans are just pissing into the wind. In a national popular vote, it would be counted the same as a Wyoming republican or California democrat’s vote. As it is, however, you can ignore California’s population entirely and focus on flipping half of the population of all the rural states, where their votes count for more and you have a lower minimum investment to get any return.

mattnewton 6y ago

No, you have to convince more people in dense cities to get the same voting power, because of the electoral college. At the extreme, you have to convince 3.6 people in california to have the same electoral vote impact as convincing just one voter in Wyoming, and that’s before taking into account that being a winner take all system in most states, you have to influence up to half of California in the worst case, before getting any return on investment. https://www.thestreet.com/personal-finance/how-much-voting-power-do-you-really-have-in-your-state https://www.thestreet.com/personal-finance/how-much-voting-p... You would have to make the argument that people in cities are cheaper per capita to convince, because of their density; cheap enough to offset these massive differences in electoral power. I don’t buy it, as dense cities have the most expensive media markets and modern internet advertising can easily target rural areas.

masonic 6y ago
You don't have to influence any of California, which is essentially a 1-party state for statewide elections. California hasn't elected a Republican to the US Senate in 32+ years.
- jhayward 6y ago
  What is your point, and how is it relevant?
- mattnewton 6y ago
  I guess this just proves my point? Because of the electoral college Californian republicans are just pissing into the wind. In a national popular vote, it would be counted the same as a Wyoming republican or California democrat’s vote. As it is, however, you can ignore California’s population entirely and focus on flipping half of the population of all the rural states, where their votes count for more and you have a lower minimum investment to get any return.