5 ms·

What you forget, or may not appreciate, is that (for example) Blue voters in states that are absolutely going Red may stay home, because their vote won't really

What you forget, or may not appreciate, is that (for example) Blue voters in states that are absolutely going Red may stay home, because their vote won't really count. I've voted Dem all my life (since 1988), and while my preferred candidate has won several of those races, my actual VOTE never helped them because I voted in Mississippi (88), Alabama (92), and Texas (96 & thereafter) -- all of which have been GOP strongholds for a long, long time. (Texas, for example, hasn't gone for the Democrats since Carter v. Ford in 1976.) It's easy to imagine that a feeling of despair about the efficacy of one's vote would drive someone to stay home.

leereeves 2y ago
> It's easy to imagine that a feeling of despair about the efficacy of one's vote would drive someone to stay home. That's true, but I don't think Democrats had a feeling of despair before the results came in. It seems like most Democrats are shocked that the election turned out this way.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  If true, their media diet betrayed them. This outcome was obvious.
- Ancapistani 2y ago
  If it helps, the right seems shocked it turned out this way, too. Personally, I realized last week that I had no reliable way to know what to expect. There was ample data to support predicting any outcome.
xnx 2y ago
> Blue voters in states that are absolutely going Red may stay home Blue voters in states that are absolutely going Blue may also stay home.
dead_gunslinger 2y ago
[dead]
- ubermonkey 2y ago
  It does.
Scea91 2y ago
For some reason I’ve not heard this argument 8 years back when Clinton lost. At that time the fact that she won popular vote was used to critique the electoral college. Maybe at that time republicans stayed at home in the blue states?
- nasmorn 2y ago
  As a foreigner it seems like the electoral college is obviously stupid. No matter who wins why. It is pure conservatism to keep it like doing something because the Bible says so. Given that it mostly helps one party it will never be changed but it cannot be argued from first principles in the 21st century.
  - Scea91 2y ago
    It can totally be argued from first principles. If you acknowledge that USA is a union and not a single state then it makes sense that the votes do not necessarily reflect the population distribution and there is some form of rebalancing. Then its a wuestion how much and whether the current balance is the right one.
  - Ancapistani 2y ago
    The US is a federal system. It serves the interests of the states, not the People. The electoral college - and the Senate - were intended to explicitly put power in the hands of the states, as equals, without regard for population. The House of Representatives was intended to be the counterbalancing voice of the People. I can totally understand disagreeing with the concept, but to say it's stupid tells me you likely don't understand its purpose and how it fits into the overall system.
    - School-Cotton 2y ago
      This is circular reasoning -- "the system is the way it is because that's how it was set up". US States are not meaningful cultural units -- people in Philadelphia are much more like people in NYC than either are like those of the rural hinterlands of their respective states. > The US is a federal system. It serves the interests of the states, not the People. Indeed, and that's a bad system that makes no sense in 2024. Disliking it doesn't mean one doesn't understand how it came to be this way. (Tangentially related aside: plenty of federal systems have much fairer systems for election to federal office than the US does. For example Germany.)
ufmace 2y ago
Why doesn't this apply both ways? Red voters in Blue states are just as likely to stay home because they think their votes won't count. And ditto the other point, Red voters in Red states may not feel like it's worth the bother to vote when they already know their state is going their way.

leereeves 2y ago

> It's easy to imagine that a feeling of despair about the efficacy of one's vote would drive someone to stay home. That's true, but I don't think Democrats had a feeling of despair before the results came in. It seems like most Democrats are shocked that the election turned out this way.

lupusreal 2y ago
If true, their media diet betrayed them. This outcome was obvious.
Ancapistani 2y ago
If it helps, the right seems shocked it turned out this way, too. Personally, I realized last week that I had no reliable way to know what to expect. There was ample data to support predicting any outcome.

xnx 2y ago

> Blue voters in states that are absolutely going Red may stay home Blue voters in states that are absolutely going Blue may also stay home.

dead_gunslinger 2y ago

[dead]

ubermonkey 2y ago
It does.

Scea91 2y ago

For some reason I’ve not heard this argument 8 years back when Clinton lost. At that time the fact that she won popular vote was used to critique the electoral college. Maybe at that time republicans stayed at home in the blue states?

nasmorn 2y ago
As a foreigner it seems like the electoral college is obviously stupid. No matter who wins why. It is pure conservatism to keep it like doing something because the Bible says so. Given that it mostly helps one party it will never be changed but it cannot be argued from first principles in the 21st century.
- Scea91 2y ago
  It can totally be argued from first principles. If you acknowledge that USA is a union and not a single state then it makes sense that the votes do not necessarily reflect the population distribution and there is some form of rebalancing. Then its a wuestion how much and whether the current balance is the right one.
- Ancapistani 2y ago
  The US is a federal system. It serves the interests of the states, not the People. The electoral college - and the Senate - were intended to explicitly put power in the hands of the states, as equals, without regard for population. The House of Representatives was intended to be the counterbalancing voice of the People. I can totally understand disagreeing with the concept, but to say it's stupid tells me you likely don't understand its purpose and how it fits into the overall system.
  - School-Cotton 2y ago
    This is circular reasoning -- "the system is the way it is because that's how it was set up". US States are not meaningful cultural units -- people in Philadelphia are much more like people in NYC than either are like those of the rural hinterlands of their respective states. > The US is a federal system. It serves the interests of the states, not the People. Indeed, and that's a bad system that makes no sense in 2024. Disliking it doesn't mean one doesn't understand how it came to be this way. (Tangentially related aside: plenty of federal systems have much fairer systems for election to federal office than the US does. For example Germany.)

ufmace 2y ago

Why doesn't this apply both ways? Red voters in Blue states are just as likely to stay home because they think their votes won't count. And ditto the other point, Red voters in Red states may not feel like it's worth the bother to vote when they already know their state is going their way.