General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsEko
(7,364 posts)Nevilledog
(51,201 posts)Eko
(7,364 posts)Nevilledog
(51,201 posts)Moving to popular vote gives every vote the same weight.
The areas in blue are majority Democratic, they're also responsible for half the GDP. Republicans are overrepresented by mere land area while contributing less economically.
It makes sense to me.
Eko
(7,364 posts)to the weight of your vote is a smart idea at all.
lostnfound
(16,191 posts)The Kochs and the Uihleins etc not only have millions to put campaign ads and issue ads on tv during elections, and to influence Facebooks policies, but also have spent tens of millions influencing the attitudes of the american public through AstroTurf campaigns, pressure groups, paid media and funding of think tanks.
The average person has nothing but their one vote and word of mouth.
But all the advertising in the world does not have the power of an actual vote. There are elections were one side overspent the other by large margins and still lost.
lostnfound
(16,191 posts)That Cuban-Americans became convinced that Biden was a socialist so they voted for trump in heavier numbers than in 2016.
Its apparently easy to convince some people to hand their vote over asked on ads.
Eko
(7,364 posts)Both Trump and Pence visited Florida including churches that are heavily Cuban. They also pushed for increased sanctions on Cuba and pushed the socialist meme heavily. Money can help with all of this of course, I never said it cant but its not the deciding factor. If that was the case then Clinton should have done quite a bit better in 2016. https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/
Tell me this, what advertisement did you see that made you vote for Biden?
So, yeah, Really.
Eko.
Roland99
(53,342 posts)kurtcagle
(1,604 posts)Even that's not wholly true. Roughly half of the country, from Denver to about 250 miles from the Pacific Ocean, are either mountains or arid deserts that support only very minimal farming and livestock, most of that area is nearly uninhabited (density under 10 people per square mile). You get extractive activities in the Plains States, but that accounts for perhaps 8% of GDP. The same holds for much of Appalachia.
Most food is grown within 100 miles of urban centers because it costs money to ship grain, produce, meat, and poultry or raw ore to where it's processed, and most of that processing is within that 100-mile limit. Most cities could sustain themselves quite nicely if they claimed everything within that perimeter - they just wouldn't necessarily have as much for interstate commerce or export. That's even true in the Midwest.
What's more, extractive industries and farming do not actually generate all that much GDP by itself. Most of that gets added in as processing, packaging, shipping, and marketing, along with infrastructure support such as tractors or heavy trucks, all of which are generally produced in the industrial areas of cities.
The EC (and winner take all apportionment) skews this even more, as it overcompensates for essentially unproductive land at the expense of productive talent.