410
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] lewdian69@lemmy.world 71 points 6 months ago

You vote for Democrats but they don't win enough seats due to gerrymandering and idiot citizens...

[-] ganksy@lemmy.world 44 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Thank you. This is a BS take based in ignorance of all the factors involved in getting your legislation to the president's desk. You have to vote every election all the way down the ballot or you can assume the same marginal success. (Edit autocorrect)

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 35 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Don't forget the Electoral College. The only democracy I'm aware of where you can win with less votes than your opponent...

... But We The People are all created equal amirite.

[-] freeman@sh.itjust.works 12 points 6 months ago

The only democracy I'm aware of where you can win with less votes than your opponent...

American exceptionalism at it's finest.

[-] UnfortunateDoorHinge@aussie.zone 4 points 6 months ago

I don't get this argument as a non American. Is the presidential a total vote regardless of geography? Most democratic countries you vote for local member. A lot of countries share the problem of progressives living close together and landsliding one electorate, but have no horses in other rural seats.

In Australia the standard story is the Liberal (conservative) party getting the most first preference votes, followed by Labor (centre left) then the Greens (progressive) coming 3rd but giving enough preferences for Labor to win.

[-] current@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Voting is based on electoral districts, which are areas mapped out every decade by state legislatures, and each district has electors which are given to a candidate who wins the vote in it.

The problem is that citizens of less populated states have more voting power due to the rules on how many electors a state gets.

Plus, conservatives often gerrymander – intentionally drawing the districts so ethnic minorities are divided, and most districts are designed to have a majority of Republican voters while all the areas with mostly Democratic voters are all put together into 1 or 2 districts. States like West Virginia also lower the amount of districts in the state as part of the strategy. The gerrymandering has lead to some pretty insane looking maps (North Carolina, Texas, Alabama, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Ohio)

Also electors may not actually vote for the candidate that wins the election in their district, which is technically illegal but also not really illegal and has happened quite a few times.

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

This accurately describes it. Further explanation:

Election of the President - Electoral College

Each citizen of Wyoming with a population of around half a million has somewhere around 3.7x the voting-weight as a Californian citizen. Why? Because each state's electoral votes to the president is the # of Congressional delegates it has.

For Wyoming: 3 Electoral Votes for the President

  • 2 US Senators (Every state gets 2 US Senators)
  • 1 US House Representative (proportionate to their population)

5.19 electoral votes per million people.

For California: 54 Electoral Votes.

  • 2 US Senators
  • 52 US House Representatives

1.37 electoral votes per million people.

Thus, you get elections where Presidents don't win the popular vote, and we expect our country to function...???

This may not seem like a big deal, but across 15-20 low-populated rust/bible-belt states, the effect adds up, leading to some of our worst Presidents in history being elected by a minority vote, including Bush Jr., in 2000, and Trump in 2016. In fact, Republicans have only won the Presidential popular vote ONCE in over 30+ years (which was Bush Jr.'s 2004 reelection when the country was wrapped around fear post-9/11 and Iraq invasion...).

The electoral college is an antiquated remnant of the slave era. In order to get America functioning properly again, it must go.

Election of US House of Representatives - Gerrymandering

Gerrymandering leads to mapping Congressional districts in ways that favors one party over another. This is probably the best layperson video to explain it. Traditionally this has been done far more nefariously and effectively by Republicans, who have also been in power at key moments, including the 2010 and 2020 Census.

Gerrymandering itself has no effect on US Presidential elections except for perhaps reducing peoples' interest in showing up to the polls in the first place if their district is gerrymandered.

Election of US Senators

This (and Governor races—effectively the President of the state) is how the US Presidential election SHOULD happen at minimum. Each individual in the state gets an equal vote regardless of where they live, and the person who receives the most votes wins.

We can discuss getting rid of FPTP later, but baby-steps.

[-] freeman@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago

I am not American. I am also from a non federal (unitary) state.

While non federal systems far from perfectly democratic, federal systems are inherently less democratic because they add another entity to the election process than the people, federal states. This is actually most egregious in senates where every federal state gets the same amount of members for being a state regardless of how many people it represents. Non federal parliaments have a similar problem because you have way smaller number of electors to represent the people.

At least in US presidential elections states are awarded electors based on their populations. However some or all states (can't really remember) have all their electors vote for the leader even if he won the state 51% to 49%. This acts like a filter and always changes the result as in the percentage of voters for candidate A is different than the percentage of electors for candidate A. It usually does not distort the result enough to flip the election but it happened in 2016.

It can theoretically happen in parliamentary systems as well but it's much more difficult. Also it's an unnecessary issue in the US because the head of the executive is not required to have the support of the legislative branch and the electors serve no other purpose.

I believe the most democratic way to elect the president would be a runoff like France's presidential elections.

[-] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Nah the UK has it too, its technically possible to win a majority with about 1/9th of the vote. It also tends to result in the right wing recieving an inflated share of the effective vote.

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago

And not ENOUGH people voted for democrats.

"I personally voted for a Democrat, how come they don't have a supermajority in Congress??" well Katelyghnn, not enough of your friends voted.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 6 months ago

Do you think that's because democratic voters are biologically less likely to vote, or could it be that the DNC is doing a poor job of energizing the base?

Fuck the GOP, of course, but they are absolutely pushing for fascism, and getting fascist policies through, which excites their fascist base.

The DNC has been pushing for tepid liberalism for decades, and when there hasn't been sign of genuine positive change at tangible levels, the DNC will lose voters.

If you can blame voters for not voting, you can blame the party for failing to grab voters as well. It's a two-way street.

load more comments (39 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 6 months ago

It's a careful balance, and benefits the rich more that way.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

They won enough seats and found just enough no votes to kill BBB and the minimum wage increase, and keep the filibuster intact so they couldn't protect Roe or voting rights.

[-] lewdian69@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

I wish they had done more too but they barely had 50/50 in the Senate and Sinema doesn't count let's be honest. So if we go back to this meme, Democrats keep winning, still just isn't the case or if you think it is true, see my comment about don't win enough. Enough being the key word.

Luckily they were able to pass lots of good legislation during that time of the thinnest of majorities. From Wikipedia: The Inflation Reduction Act, American Rescue Plan Act, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Postal Service Reform Act, Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, CHIPS and Science Act, Honoring Our PACT Act, Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act, Respect for Marriage Act.

load more comments (5 replies)
this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2024
410 points (86.0% liked)

Political Memes

5270 readers
1849 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS