4 ms·

There are like… 2% farmers in the US?

by nkmnz 2y ago

JdeBP 2y ago
Bear in mind that the President of the United States is not directly elected by a popular vote. The mathematics of who gets the largest voice are distorted, intentionally so by the Framers. They did not want low-population agrarian states to be permanently in effect disenfranchised. It is ironic after all of these decades of originalism being seen as a reactionary thing against minorities that the Framers put positive discrimination for (economic and geographic) minorities into the Constitution explicitly to prevent "tyranny of the majority". The U.S.A. is full of such ironies at the moment.
- hypeatei 2y ago
  > explicitly to prevent "tyranny of the majority" Yep, as if tyranny of the minority is better. Of course Republicans think it's good because it gets them elected but this country is regressing because of the status quo.
- chgs 2y ago
  When the framers were setting out their ideas the rural states had large populations. However the framers declared great swathes of them to be worth 60% of others.
Jean-Papoulos 2y ago
A lot of these 2% live in states whose influence on the outcome of the presidential election is disproportionately high due to the electoral system. So you have a high influence of farmers on states that have a high influence on the election outcome and those 2% end up looking more like 4% in terms of practical influence. It is disingenuous to lay the results at their feet only like the comment you're responding to suggests ; Trump did win the popular vote. The dems fumbled this one, plain and simple.
- krapp 2y ago
  You're correct that this election was more lost by the Democrats than won by the Republicans, but Trump didn't actually get the popular vote. That meme took off well before the final vote count was completed. It was close, and American politics being what it is, it doesn't actually matter. Hillary Clinton did get a majority in 2016 after all, but the narrative was still that she was the worst and losing-est candidate in American political history. Every Democrat is a liar, a cheat and a communist, every Republican has a mandate from God to sweep the leftists into the sea. That's just how it works, regardless of what the numbers say.
  - light_hue_1 2y ago
    Huh? Trump won 49% of the vote in 2024, compared to Hillary's 48% in 2016. The numbers go with the story perfectly. He didn't win a majority of the popular vote, but neither did Hilary. Trump did win a bigger share than she did though.
    - krapp 2y ago
      You're confusing the popular vote with electoral votes. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 by a margin of almost 3 million[0]. But because states vote for President in the US through the electoral college, rather than people, Trump won the election with a slight majority of electoral votes. Hillary Clinton lost not because she was unpopular (she was, even in the most conservative estimate, about as popular as Trump,) but because she didn't campaign in the correct states. [0]https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-officially-wins-popular-vote-29-million/story?id=44354341 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-officially-w...
      - cge 2y ago
        They're not confusing popular and electoral votes. Trump won a majority of electoral votes, and a plurality of the popular vote, as they claimed; that is from the official count, not preliminary counts. He did not win a majority of the popular vote, but that is also the case both for Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton (twice, though one of those was a rare three candidate race where a majority would have been unlikely). You cannot say that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 and say that Trump did not in 2024 unless you are disputing the official count. He had a margin of around 2.3m. https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/2024presgeresults.pdf https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/2024pres...

There are like… 2% farmers in the US?

by nkmnz 2y ago

There are like… 2% farmers in the US?

Bear in mind that the President of the United States is not directly elected by a popular vote. The mathematics of who gets the largest voice are distorted, intentionally so by the Framers. They did not want low-population agrarian states to be permanently in effect disenfranchised. It is ironic after all of these decades of originalism being seen as a reactionary thing against minorities that the Framers put positive discrimination for (economic and geographic) minorities into the Constitution explicitly to prevent "tyranny of the majority". The U.S.A. is full of such ironies at the moment.

hypeatei 2y ago
> explicitly to prevent "tyranny of the majority" Yep, as if tyranny of the minority is better. Of course Republicans think it's good because it gets them elected but this country is regressing because of the status quo.
chgs 2y ago
When the framers were setting out their ideas the rural states had large populations. However the framers declared great swathes of them to be worth 60% of others.

Jean-Papoulos 2y ago

A lot of these 2% live in states whose influence on the outcome of the presidential election is disproportionately high due to the electoral system. So you have a high influence of farmers on states that have a high influence on the election outcome and those 2% end up looking more like 4% in terms of practical influence. It is disingenuous to lay the results at their feet only like the comment you're responding to suggests ; Trump did win the popular vote. The dems fumbled this one, plain and simple.

krapp 2y ago
You're correct that this election was more lost by the Democrats than won by the Republicans, but Trump didn't actually get the popular vote. That meme took off well before the final vote count was completed. It was close, and American politics being what it is, it doesn't actually matter. Hillary Clinton did get a majority in 2016 after all, but the narrative was still that she was the worst and losing-est candidate in American political history. Every Democrat is a liar, a cheat and a communist, every Republican has a mandate from God to sweep the leftists into the sea. That's just how it works, regardless of what the numbers say.
- light_hue_1 2y ago
  Huh? Trump won 49% of the vote in 2024, compared to Hillary's 48% in 2016. The numbers go with the story perfectly. He didn't win a majority of the popular vote, but neither did Hilary. Trump did win a bigger share than she did though.
  - krapp 2y ago
    You're confusing the popular vote with electoral votes. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 by a margin of almost 3 million[0]. But because states vote for President in the US through the electoral college, rather than people, Trump won the election with a slight majority of electoral votes. Hillary Clinton lost not because she was unpopular (she was, even in the most conservative estimate, about as popular as Trump,) but because she didn't campaign in the correct states. [0]https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-officially-wins-popular-vote-29-million/story?id=44354341 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-officially-w...
    - cge 2y ago
      They're not confusing popular and electoral votes. Trump won a majority of electoral votes, and a plurality of the popular vote, as they claimed; that is from the official count, not preliminary counts. He did not win a majority of the popular vote, but that is also the case both for Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton (twice, though one of those was a rare three candidate race where a majority would have been unlikely). You cannot say that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 and say that Trump did not in 2024 unless you are disputing the official count. He had a margin of around 2.3m. https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/2024presgeresults.pdf https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/2024pres...