• Fisherman75@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    What’s the medium sized red dot just north of LA? I live around there and it makes sense but there’s a lot of small-ish towns around here and I don’t know what it represents. What population patterns do these dots represent? I’m guessing the red dot is either Visalia, Tulare County, San Joaquin Valley in general, or Fresno.

    • ylph@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      The dots are counties - the largest red one above LA is Kern county - Tulare county is the smaller red dot above it to the right

      This is a clearer version of that map. The other two much smaller red dots above LA are Kings and Inyo counties - this map is based on 2016 presidential results, as Inyo went blue in 2020 (by only 14 votes though)

  • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Good luck trying to get an American conservative to understand what the second map represents. I means hit, they refuse to grasp the concept of “per capita” because they know it makes them look bad.

    • Optional@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      gasp Are you suggesting, good sir, that republiQans may in fact not be arguing a particular point in good faith???

      NO! I cannot believe it.

    • Optional@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Hey now, the KS governor just vetoed some bullshit anti-abortion stuff. Somehow.

      But yes, KS is a poster child for letting right-wing idiocy run rampant.

  • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Who’s read an argument that’s something like “if we change this, then elections will always go blue, and red areas will feel unheard and _____”

    It’s argued the blank is something bad but I can’t recall what it was 🤷‍♂️ IDK if it was civil war/secession bad or what

    • مهما طال الليل@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I remember a coworker from Utah once telling me that farmers are the most disadvantaged minority or something. Basically his argument was it is better that rural areas get more representation and people in the cities don’t need to be represented as much. For him it was an easy argument to make since it is the status quo and serves his interests.

      The people who want to change things are who need to come up with either strong arguments to win public opinion or increasingly evident win their rights by direct action. No one who benefits from the current system will give up anything.

      • Optional@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s a variant of state’s rights. Basically up until a generation or two ago a lot more people lived in a medum-to-small town. For a lot of those people, the cities were strange places of violence and grossitude. Full of corruption, and evil.

        The idea that they would also make all the laws was unthinkable. “Why - they’d let the gays marry! We know there’s no such thing as gays!” and so on. (Although practically speaking - where the political rubber met the road so to speak - it was about being allowed to keep humans in concentration camps for money.)

        So, back before we knew how conception worked or what an automatic rifle was or even that we were one small part of a larger group of stars called a galaxy - they developed the Electoral College to ensure that everyone had an equitable say. That, and the Senate having exactly two representatives no matter how many people lived there. From a political point of view, it was reasonable at the time.

        Fast forward to 2016 and batshit insanity is literally trying to topple the government in a demented coup attempt and it starts to look less like a good idea.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        The farmer argument is such BS though, believe in some past that is long past and may never have happened.

        My grandparents were one of those farming families it would apply to. They had it tough, it was hard to make any money and people relied on them for food. They also were forced out of business half a century ago. Currently farmers are much more likely to be large businesses and definitely not in need of special treatment

    • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I don’t think it is relevant.

      The xkcd points out distribution and population.

      The second map highlights how much more democratic the us is than republican and that is it obviously a broken system that republican’s have a chance of winning

      • BigAssFan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        2nd map only shows full red or blue dots, whereas in reality each dot would be a pie-chart of red and blue.

      • Optional@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        agreed - love xkcd, happy to see it anytime, but it’s very specifically out of context here.

        Population maps are what it’s about.

  • Geometrinen_Gepardi@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    This map is fascinating. Would be cool to have a mini legend for all those blue dots, as in what cities they are and why did people gather there.

    • paysrenttobirds@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      The way they are so evenly situated, I think they are just putting a population-proportioned dot in the center of each county. In meant states, counties are pretty much equal sized squares with varying amounts of people in them.

  • SSJMarx@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I don’t like sand. It’s rough, and coarse, and irritating - and it gets everywhere.

  • evidences@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I doubt anyone will disagree with me but “look at how red this map is” is the stupidest arguement.

    Last year after ana election my dad reposted a map on Facebook like this but for the single issue on our states ballot. The comment from the original poster was something like liberal cities decided this all counties need representation. Of course the counties that weren’t blue were mostly populated by cows.

    But like seriously this was a direct popular vote on a single issue you can’t get a more representative election than that one.

    • trafficnab@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      My favorite thing to do with these people is to ask them “okay, would it be alright if these issues were decided on a per-county basis then?”, if they say no they’ve outed themselves as just wanting to hold as much control over others as possible from a minority position, if they say yes ask again but with individual towns, if they say yes to that, then you narrow it down to individual people, then they tend to get mad when they realize what you’ve done

      • aidan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        then you narrow it down to individual people, then they tend to get mad when they realize what you’ve done

        That’s anarchocapitalism…

    • wolfpack86@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yep. There are currently three heavy biases favoring the rural population. -senate (by design) -the house --not by design, but because the representation was capped at 435. It hasn’t grown with population and thus a citizen in Wyoming gets more representation than a citizen in California (or Texas for that matter) -the presidency by virtue of the above two being biased.

      Fix house apportionment, let the Senate be the safeguard, and the presidency will have a very slight protection by nature of the electors via what matches the Senate.

      This is all in line with the framing of the Constitution, but it gives up power to “the bad guys” (aka the actual majority)