6 ms·

Not exactly gerrymandering, but there is a systemic bias against Democrats due to the structure of our government. The most obvious example, Republicans have wo

by slg 4y ago

Not exactly gerrymandering, but there is a systemic bias against Democrats due to the structure of our government. The most obvious example, Republicans have won the national popular vote once in the last 8 presidential elections.

corrral 4y ago
Those stats might hold regardless, but to be fair one would expect different voting patterns under the current system, versus a direct popular-vote election, so it's not accurate to say that anyone "won" the popular vote in any US Presidential election, since that wasn't the contest and the fact that it wasn't affected how voters and candidates behaved. It's like challenging someone to a foot race, losing, and then deciding afterward that you won on "style points" or something. That wasn't the contest, and the other participant might have done things differently under different rules. The system as it stands makes voting pointless for people who are in districts that reliably go for the "other team". If they could at least influence the Presidential election, more of those voters might show up at the polls. GOTV and other campaign efforts take this into account, which magnifies the effect.
- slg 4y ago
  Fine, you want another example of systemic bias in our government? The 50 Democratic senators represent 41.5 million more people than the 50 Republican senators.
  - dntrkv 4y ago
    I don't really have an issue with the way the senate is setup, since that was intentional. My issue is with the house, where we are supposed to have equal representation, but don't.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > I don’t really have an issue with the way the senate is setup, since that was intentional. Why is bad intent less bad than bad accident. > My issue is with the house, where we are supposed to have equal representation, but don’t. House representation was supposed to be approximately equal limited by granularity and it remains approximately equal limited by granularity.
      - slg 4y ago
        >House representation was supposed to be approximately equal limited by granularity and it remains approximately equal limited by granularity. But the "limited by granularity" part is growing more and more limited. The size of the House originally grew as the size of the population grew. Once we capped the size of the House, we lost relative granularity allowing this problem worsen as the gap between the smallest and largest congressional districts increased.
    - adamc 4y ago
      It was intentional and a big part of it was to protect slave-owners. Evil intent does not get a pass.
  - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
    Also: don't forget that the District of Columbia has no voting representation in Congress. DC has a larger population than Wyoming or Vermont, and will probably overtake Alaska by the next Census based on its current trajectory.
    - nonameiguess 4y ago
      Not just DC. American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Northern Marianas Islands, US Virgin Islands, and Guam are all American citizens but can't vote for president at all, don't get a Senator, and collectively only get a few representatives, most of whom are ceremonial and don't get to vote.
  - refurb 4y ago
    That’s not a systemic bias against Democrats, that’s an intention design so that small states and large states have more balance of power.
    - i5Aj7PXGjUPy 4y ago
      idk why you're getting downvoted. This was literally a compromise made by the founders to protect smaller states from larger states
      - corrral 4y ago
        The downvotes are probably because intentional bias is still bias.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - devmor 4y ago
      Which is literally a bias against democracy. States are not fixed entities. It's people that should be represented, not an arbitrary geographic boundary. That intentional design makes it so depending on where you physically live, your vote is worth many times less or more than someone else's. That makes no sense.
      - refurb 4y ago
        Please bone up on government design. Democracy sucks, it’s majority rule. We’re a republic that is intentionally designed to provide balance rather than “51% voted to spend 99% of the budget on the cities so I guess rural folks can pound sand”. Note that pretty much every country has something similar - some body that acts on a check of pure democratic representation.
        devmor 4y ago
        Ah, yes, instead we should have 35% voted to end civil rights for an entire group but they live in more land, so 65% can pound sand. Much better.
  - claystu 4y ago
    That's not a systematic bias. The senate was DESIGNED from the beginning to be immune to population differences: each state gets two senators, regardless of population. It was one of the compromises that convinced the small states to join the union in the first place.
    - corrral 4y ago
      Intentional, designed-in bias is still bias. Right?
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
jofer 4y ago
> The most obvious example, Republicans have won the national popular vote once in the last 8 presidential elections. Isn't that the other way around? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden... (i.e. Democrats have won the popular vote in the last 8 presidential elections, but have only won the office in 5 of those). Also, I had forgotten this (and it was huge at the time, and I voted in those elections, so I should remember), but Bill Clinton didn't win the majority popular vote either. The democrats had a larger popular vote that the republicans, for sure, but not over 50% due to third party / independent candidates. Contrast that with the last 6 elections where the democratic party has had more than 50% of the popular vote each time. Ah... And W's second term the republicans had more than 50% of the popular vote...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
TimedToasts 4y ago
If the Presidential vote was decided on popular totals then this stat would mean something. Everyone knows the rules going in.
- lostdog 4y ago
  The crown was passed down by primogeniture. Everyone knew the rules going in, so it was fair and democratic.
- sandworm101 4y ago
  Exactly. Everyone must know and accept that some people's votes are worth more than others. Whether it is for a senator in Iowa, or for the electoral college that selects the president, the people in some areas of the country are allotted more power than those in others. It has always been that way and so shall it remain. Anyone not happy with the power allotted their vote is free to up stakes and move somewhere where votes are worth more, from California to Iowa or New York to New Hampshire.
- giaour 4y ago
  Before 2000, it was an interesting thought experiment but dismissed as highly unlikely that a president could technically win office without winning the popular vote. Republicans (but also some purist democrats) were apoplectic when Bill Clinton took office with an electoral majority and a mere popular plurality in 1992. The ground shifted has shifted around the rules many times in the past, but the current rural vs urban divide of the two parties combined with the majority of Americans living in urban and suburban areas has led to some really distorted and unintended outcomes of the rules.
- chimprich 4y ago
  > Everyone knows the rules going in. Does knowing that a system is undemocratic make it more democratic in some way?
setr 4y ago
That statistic seems pointless? Republicans won 3/8 of the last elections (bush x2 , trump x1) with 2 losing the national vote. So 6/8 rounds came through properly. More importantly, there’s apparently only been 5 presidents elected where popular vote != electoral vote[0]. Based on this metric… everything seems to be working mostly fine, with no apparent bias? [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presid...
- etchalon 4y ago
  The issue is the trend is accelerating. It used be rare. It is no longer rare.
  - prepend 4y ago
    It’s not accelerating, you’re just biasing your sample based on what’s happened recently. These are different things. It’s pretty hard to declare a trend with such small numbers.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  That is not my definition of mostly fine.
phpisthebest 4y ago
National Popular vote for President is about the most worthless static one can cite to bluster their position for political balance National Popular vote should not be used for any reason for any purpose, unless you want to completely change the American system of government ending federalism completely, which I have no desire for, I like federalism
- slg 4y ago
  >National Popular vote should not be used for any reason for any purpose, unless you want to completely change the American system of government Well, yes, that is exactly what many people want, a government that is more representative of the will of the people. We don't have to throw out federalism to get there, but a system that was not intentionally designed to support minority rule would be nice.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    The system was intentionally designed to reserve power to the people AND the states, just not the people. Aka Federalism If you remove the power of the states, leaning only on "the will of the people" you are getting rid of federalism,
- purephase 4y ago
  It's easy to like it when it provides you the outcome that you're favourable towards. For people, the majority in this case (as evidence by the popular vote count), who do not agree with these outcomes, federalism is a fucking mess. In no way it makes sense that the Senate should wield the power it has when South Dakota has the same weight as California. It's ludicrous.
- giaour 4y ago
  Yes, we'll need to completely change everything about our government, just like we did when we mandated elections for senators in 1913. /s
- Der_Einzige 4y ago
  Getting rid of the electoral college is not the same as killing federalism. It's not even close. What planet are you living on? Seems not to be earth...
IndySun 4y ago
>Republicans have won the national popular vote once in the last 8 presidential elections. You mean Democrats.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- IndySun 4y ago
  Ah, I misread. In common parlance, my bad. I publicly take it back.
SirensOfTitan 4y ago
Democrats in general have some unhealthy obsession with the presidency that leaves important downstream races from local municipal government to gubernatorial races ignored. Republicans have been doing the grueling work for decades to dominate local politics and it shows. Roe v Wade is so devastating of a defeat largely because democrats who support it don’t care enough about state and local government.

by slg 4y ago

corrral 4y ago

Those stats might hold regardless, but to be fair one would expect different voting patterns under the current system, versus a direct popular-vote election, so it's not accurate to say that anyone "won" the popular vote in any US Presidential election, since that wasn't the contest and the fact that it wasn't affected how voters and candidates behaved. It's like challenging someone to a foot race, losing, and then deciding afterward that you won on "style points" or something. That wasn't the contest, and the other participant might have done things differently under different rules. The system as it stands makes voting pointless for people who are in districts that reliably go for the "other team". If they could at least influence the Presidential election, more of those voters might show up at the polls. GOTV and other campaign efforts take this into account, which magnifies the effect.

slg 4y ago
Fine, you want another example of systemic bias in our government? The 50 Democratic senators represent 41.5 million more people than the 50 Republican senators.
- dntrkv 4y ago
  I don't really have an issue with the way the senate is setup, since that was intentional. My issue is with the house, where we are supposed to have equal representation, but don't.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > I don’t really have an issue with the way the senate is setup, since that was intentional. Why is bad intent less bad than bad accident. > My issue is with the house, where we are supposed to have equal representation, but don’t. House representation was supposed to be approximately equal limited by granularity and it remains approximately equal limited by granularity.
    - slg 4y ago
      >House representation was supposed to be approximately equal limited by granularity and it remains approximately equal limited by granularity. But the "limited by granularity" part is growing more and more limited. The size of the House originally grew as the size of the population grew. Once we capped the size of the House, we lost relative granularity allowing this problem worsen as the gap between the smallest and largest congressional districts increased.
  - adamc 4y ago
    It was intentional and a big part of it was to protect slave-owners. Evil intent does not get a pass.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  Also: don't forget that the District of Columbia has no voting representation in Congress. DC has a larger population than Wyoming or Vermont, and will probably overtake Alaska by the next Census based on its current trajectory.
  - nonameiguess 4y ago
    Not just DC. American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Northern Marianas Islands, US Virgin Islands, and Guam are all American citizens but can't vote for president at all, don't get a Senator, and collectively only get a few representatives, most of whom are ceremonial and don't get to vote.
- refurb 4y ago
  That’s not a systemic bias against Democrats, that’s an intention design so that small states and large states have more balance of power.
  - i5Aj7PXGjUPy 4y ago
    idk why you're getting downvoted. This was literally a compromise made by the founders to protect smaller states from larger states
    - corrral 4y ago
      The downvotes are probably because intentional bias is still bias.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - devmor 4y ago
    Which is literally a bias against democracy. States are not fixed entities. It's people that should be represented, not an arbitrary geographic boundary. That intentional design makes it so depending on where you physically live, your vote is worth many times less or more than someone else's. That makes no sense.
    - refurb 4y ago
      Please bone up on government design. Democracy sucks, it’s majority rule. We’re a republic that is intentionally designed to provide balance rather than “51% voted to spend 99% of the budget on the cities so I guess rural folks can pound sand”. Note that pretty much every country has something similar - some body that acts on a check of pure democratic representation.
      - devmor 4y ago
        Ah, yes, instead we should have 35% voted to end civil rights for an entire group but they live in more land, so 65% can pound sand. Much better.
- claystu 4y ago
  That's not a systematic bias. The senate was DESIGNED from the beginning to be immune to population differences: each state gets two senators, regardless of population. It was one of the compromises that convinced the small states to join the union in the first place.
  - corrral 4y ago
    Intentional, designed-in bias is still bias. Right?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

jofer 4y ago

> The most obvious example, Republicans have won the national popular vote once in the last 8 presidential elections. Isn't that the other way around? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden... (i.e. Democrats have won the popular vote in the last 8 presidential elections, but have only won the office in 5 of those). Also, I had forgotten this (and it was huge at the time, and I voted in those elections, so I should remember), but Bill Clinton didn't win the majority popular vote either. The democrats had a larger popular vote that the republicans, for sure, but not over 50% due to third party / independent candidates. Contrast that with the last 6 elections where the democratic party has had more than 50% of the popular vote each time. Ah... And W's second term the republicans had more than 50% of the popular vote...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

TimedToasts 4y ago

If the Presidential vote was decided on popular totals then this stat would mean something. Everyone knows the rules going in.

lostdog 4y ago
The crown was passed down by primogeniture. Everyone knew the rules going in, so it was fair and democratic.
sandworm101 4y ago
Exactly. Everyone must know and accept that some people's votes are worth more than others. Whether it is for a senator in Iowa, or for the electoral college that selects the president, the people in some areas of the country are allotted more power than those in others. It has always been that way and so shall it remain. Anyone not happy with the power allotted their vote is free to up stakes and move somewhere where votes are worth more, from California to Iowa or New York to New Hampshire.
giaour 4y ago
Before 2000, it was an interesting thought experiment but dismissed as highly unlikely that a president could technically win office without winning the popular vote. Republicans (but also some purist democrats) were apoplectic when Bill Clinton took office with an electoral majority and a mere popular plurality in 1992. The ground shifted has shifted around the rules many times in the past, but the current rural vs urban divide of the two parties combined with the majority of Americans living in urban and suburban areas has led to some really distorted and unintended outcomes of the rules.
chimprich 4y ago
> Everyone knows the rules going in. Does knowing that a system is undemocratic make it more democratic in some way?

setr 4y ago

That statistic seems pointless? Republicans won 3/8 of the last elections (bush x2 , trump x1) with 2 losing the national vote. So 6/8 rounds came through properly. More importantly, there’s apparently only been 5 presidents elected where popular vote != electoral vote[0]. Based on this metric… everything seems to be working mostly fine, with no apparent bias? [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presid...

etchalon 4y ago
The issue is the trend is accelerating. It used be rare. It is no longer rare.
- prepend 4y ago
  It’s not accelerating, you’re just biasing your sample based on what’s happened recently. These are different things. It’s pretty hard to declare a trend with such small numbers.
lotsofpulp 4y ago
That is not my definition of mostly fine.

phpisthebest 4y ago

National Popular vote for President is about the most worthless static one can cite to bluster their position for political balance National Popular vote should not be used for any reason for any purpose, unless you want to completely change the American system of government ending federalism completely, which I have no desire for, I like federalism

slg 4y ago
>National Popular vote should not be used for any reason for any purpose, unless you want to completely change the American system of government Well, yes, that is exactly what many people want, a government that is more representative of the will of the people. We don't have to throw out federalism to get there, but a system that was not intentionally designed to support minority rule would be nice.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  The system was intentionally designed to reserve power to the people AND the states, just not the people. Aka Federalism If you remove the power of the states, leaning only on "the will of the people" you are getting rid of federalism,
purephase 4y ago
It's easy to like it when it provides you the outcome that you're favourable towards. For people, the majority in this case (as evidence by the popular vote count), who do not agree with these outcomes, federalism is a fucking mess. In no way it makes sense that the Senate should wield the power it has when South Dakota has the same weight as California. It's ludicrous.
giaour 4y ago
Yes, we'll need to completely change everything about our government, just like we did when we mandated elections for senators in 1913. /s
Der_Einzige 4y ago
Getting rid of the electoral college is not the same as killing federalism. It's not even close. What planet are you living on? Seems not to be earth...

IndySun 4y ago

>Republicans have won the national popular vote once in the last 8 presidential elections. You mean Democrats.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
IndySun 4y ago
Ah, I misread. In common parlance, my bad. I publicly take it back.

SirensOfTitan 4y ago

Democrats in general have some unhealthy obsession with the presidency that leaves important downstream races from local municipal government to gubernatorial races ignored. Republicans have been doing the grueling work for decades to dominate local politics and it shows. Roe v Wade is so devastating of a defeat largely because democrats who support it don’t care enough about state and local government.