5 ms·

People always say this, but it doesn't make sense. The reason there is such a thing as a battleground state is because some voters matter and others do not, tha

by wan23 6y ago

People always say this, but it doesn't make sense. The reason there is such a thing as a battleground state is because some voters matter and others do not, thanks to the EC. Look at this map from the 2016 election. New York is almost all red, but Trump didn't even bother courting voters there because their votes matter not at all. If there were a national popular vote, then every vote everywhere would matter. No candidate could focus on a few places if they want to win, because the whole country would be in play.

simonsarris 6y ago
Except 83% of the USA population lives in urban areas. Parent comment is suggesting that any candidate would rationally only focus on urban areas, urban issues, urban trends, etc.
- zepto 6y ago
  Exactly - high population density areas would become the battlegrounds. Nobody outside a city would matter.
- wan23 6y ago
  In our first past the post voting system, the parties will gravitate to positions that roughly 50% of the people have. If there were two candidates that were both ignoring rural areas and were 50/50 with urbanites, it would be only rational for one to try to capture the remaining 17% of people who live in rural areas. That would make it so that the candidate who ignores the rural population would be a sure loser. The only thing that could happen then would be that the other party also fights for the rural vote or that they try to claim a larger share of the urban vote to make up for their disadvantage in rural communities. In either case, votes from the entire country would matter.
  - zepto 6y ago
    That doesn’t add up at all. How can both be at 50% with urban voters and yet only one of them ‘ignoring the rural vote’? Of course rural votes would have some effect at the margins, but the priorities of rural voters would always be a meaningless tie breaker, and never carry significant weight. Yes, votes across the whole country would matter, but rural votes would have so little leverage that they wouldn’t impact the agenda.

by wan23 6y ago

simonsarris 6y ago

Except 83% of the USA population lives in urban areas. Parent comment is suggesting that any candidate would rationally only focus on urban areas, urban issues, urban trends, etc.

zepto 6y ago
Exactly - high population density areas would become the battlegrounds. Nobody outside a city would matter.
wan23 6y ago
In our first past the post voting system, the parties will gravitate to positions that roughly 50% of the people have. If there were two candidates that were both ignoring rural areas and were 50/50 with urbanites, it would be only rational for one to try to capture the remaining 17% of people who live in rural areas. That would make it so that the candidate who ignores the rural population would be a sure loser. The only thing that could happen then would be that the other party also fights for the rural vote or that they try to claim a larger share of the urban vote to make up for their disadvantage in rural communities. In either case, votes from the entire country would matter.
- zepto 6y ago
  That doesn’t add up at all. How can both be at 50% with urban voters and yet only one of them ‘ignoring the rural vote’? Of course rural votes would have some effect at the margins, but the priorities of rural voters would always be a meaningless tie breaker, and never carry significant weight. Yes, votes across the whole country would matter, but rural votes would have so little leverage that they wouldn’t impact the agenda.