- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Invariant of the day: In any square mile of the USA, there are 25 Republican voters, the rest of them either vote Democrat or not at all.
It doesn’t work of course. Suffolk County, MA (Boston) has a partial pressure of about 1kGOP/mi2. Nevertheless, it’s closer than you might expect considering how many square miles don’t even have 25 human beings.
In my head I read that as “one kiloGOP per square mile”
That’s what he wrote.
Why he had to mix metric and freedom units, though, I don’t understand.
When this baby hits one point one kiloGOPs we’re gunna see some serious shit
This is heavy
You can read it out loud that way too. KiloGOP has three syllables.
Just a few hundred miliGOPs is enough to fuck up a city council.
We need to get the EPA on this. It’s pollution.
Must determine the hazardous ppm of GOPs in the water
Zero tolerance
Well Biden just stepped down from the elections
I loved finding this out from a random comment on Lemmy. The interweb’s still got it!
I don’t know that there’s a lot of sand in Kansas.
There’s a whole lot of dumbass rednecks though.
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.
All I know was the last time I was in Kansas City, MO, which was many years ago, the people I was with would yell, get back to Kansas if a car drove by with a Bush Jr. bumper sticker.
Missouri is even more fukt than Kansas, ironically.
Having only ever been to Kansas City and Fulton, I couldn’t say. But I did read What’s the Matter With Kansas? years ago. I’m sure it hasn’t substantially changed since that book came out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What's_the_Matter_with_Kansas%3F_(book)
I think it actually has. My understanding is the KS GOP so thoroughly fucked the state that they started to lose support from generational voters.
All the hospitals closed, economics got worse, big agri bought everyone, etc.
But they still run most of the state, so, that’s not saying much.
Any improvement over what’s in that book is good.
Why don’t the Blue states just enact social democratic policies and let the Red ones rot in their ancap dystopias?
Americans seem to have forgotten about federalism. You don’t need the same laws governing all 340 million of you.
The EU is a patchwork of rights for example. Poland doesn’t have marriage equality and only permits abortions in case of rape, incest, or danger to the mother. The Netherlands has marriage equality and abortions on demand up to 24 weeks. The union is not endangered by this.
Hell, Canada does federalism better than you, with a relatively weak federal government that needs to be always consulting with the provinces. Provinces retain much of the income-tax revenue and get to experiment much more meaningfully with different policy mixes, under a multi-party system.
Why don’t the Blue states just enact social democratic policies and let the Red ones rot in their ancap dystopias?
Because the red states have outsized influence over federal law, and they can outlaw the social democratic policies at a national level.
deleted by creator
Honestly, I think shifting the fed to a more Confederate model would be a good idea. A large number of problems we’re running into is the attempt to control the whole nation over local interests. It might be possible to diffuse a large number of contentious points just on that alone.
deleted by creator
What’s stopping California or Vermont or whatever from enacting state-level Universal Health Insurance programs or free university or whatever else?
Who is going to fund it?
deleted by creator
The commerce clause doesn’t apply to in-state systems unless they interact with a foreign nation, native tribe, or another state.
What kind of abuse is even possible here?
deleted by creator
Fair enough - but, emissions can be argued (with evidence) to be an interstate issue, particularly with large cities being contributors.
In many cases, republiQans have pre-empted any progressive actions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council
Nothing other than cost and logistics. Massachusetts had “RomneyCare” before ObamaCare existed for the country as a whole.
The fact that now state-level reforms and policies aren’t pursued is partially a symptom of the American people become national-authority simps.
And it’s partially because Democrats and Republicans seem determined to make everyone follow their interpretation of the rules. Most of American politics at this point seems to be about “hurting the right people.”
Lastly, most key wedge issues in the United States are often fundamentally moral questions that relate to constitutionality, making it impossible to allow some states to, for instance, hold slaves, allow child labor, allow abortion, allow religious fascism in public schools, allow racial discrimination, etc., without other states prevailing on the bedrock morality of the constitution.
I.e., the United States does not, as a singular country, remotely agree on fundamental ethics that can form a foundation for a coherent nation that would then allow for more state-level experimentation. The are certainly “different” states though. Look at Vermont vs. New Hampshire for instance. They’re quite different despite being bordering states.
Yes, I agree. That’s why I wrote that Americans have forgotten how to do federalism. Like, I get that states rights used to mean fucking slavery and you needed a strong central government to keep the southern racists from lynching people, but how else are you going to manage such a vast space and remain a democracy in the 21st century?
The moral issues you guys are culture warring over are nowhere near as grave as slavery or segregation now.
Not only that, but you have also concentrated the arbitration of these cosmic moral wedge issues on like what 10 people? President, SCOTUS, and whatever Manchin figure is the Senate kingmaker of the year. No wonder it’s breaking at the seams.
Yeah, that’s why I mentioned that the United States has basically become national authority simps. “Voting” these days for most people is synonymous with presidential elections.
That being said, for many people, issues like abortion, trans and gay segregation/discrimination, legal slavery of prisoners, mass and school shootings, and the rates of violence and murder against: Indigenous, black, etc men and women are fairly serious and important issues that are, if not equal, relatively close in terms of moral outrage to lynching and slavery. I can understand that you don’t see it that way though.
Don’t get me wrong, I am passionate about civil and economic rights in Quebec. But I accept that certain rules change at the Vermont border. The question even the most ardent internationalist must ask is at what threshold do things in another jurisdiction become so intolerable that they would need to get personally involved and intervene in another People’s business. In international law, which we can take as the base rate, that threshold is pretty high, at crimes against humanity-ish. From there it goes down. How far down? Depends on the balance different communities are willing to strike. Inter-community intervention also has its own catastrophic consequences. There is no right answer of course but I strongly suspect the contemporary American one is not it.
You must also recognize you’re not getting an unbiased source here online. What are the true differences? I suspect us Americans are more likely than most to complain about politics, to “air our dirty laundry”. I’m not really disagreeing with your points but the differences in real life might be smaller than you’d think from some of these discussions
Yeah, well put. I generally agree.
Massachusetts has that, or as far as we can. You’ll find a range of policies with each state being different but “blue” states leaning in one direction and “red” states leaning in another. There are several states with variations in at least some free college, and some states with much better health insurance coverage
We have “universal” coverage, building on Romneycare, but are still subject to the same framework as everyone else. We still need to honor everyone else’s insurance providers, the whole patchwork of profit takers and inefficiencies. By ourselves we can only do the same thing better, but we can’t change the paradigm
It’s been a long time coming but tuition is finally free at state universities and colleges. It was even retroactive for the school year: in April 29, I got a refund of all the tuition i had paid for my kid for last school year
The traditional map is more reflective of electoral power. This one is by population which would be critical in a republic, but traditional map where each count is colored by their majority shows how being the majority in lightly populated areas gives outsized power.
Cities tend to be Blue, but cities don’t get a unified vote, plus are subject to state laws. Look at Houston: they don’t have a chance
But yes, we do federalism. Speaking for Massachusetts:
- as close to universal healthcare as you can get in the us
- healthcare “sanctuary” state
- consistently the best or near the best education system
- free tuition at state universities
- minimum wage over $15, among the highest
- strong emphasis on transit, walkable cities
- strong anti pollution and anti climate change laws
- strong wetlands and coastal protection
- among the first states to be entirely rid of coal
- immigrant protections
- first state to legalize gay marriage
- among the first to legalize marijuana
- by some reviews, highest quality of life in the US
But we’re affected by everyone else:
- not allowed to make air pollution rules. All we can say is we agree with California
- we had forced EPA to regulate Midwest polluters where downwind pollution affected us. Worked for a few decades but recent Supreme Court ruling says EPA can’t regulate interstate pollution, wtf
- strong gun control laws, partly invalidated by recent Supreme Court. I know I’m not surrounded by “good guys” with concealed weapons ready to blast away when they get uncomfortable
When I read about some places attempts to prevent voting, I am so happy none of it is relevant. My state has good outreach to make it easy to register, easy to vote in whatever manner you choose, and has sufficiently funded voting center ps that everyone has a convenient one with little to no waiting. I can walk to mine. When there’s been a line, it’s short and in air conditioning. There’s always a school fundraiser bake sale if I want a treat
So yes, believe me, we look down on all those dystopias between free cities as we fly over. They may have been misled and manipulated but they chose their poison
That was the ideal, but every ounce of freedom given to the south has been used to torment the vulnerable, so they kept losing supreme court cases and having amendments added to the constition that give the federal govt. more power because its needed their state governments from being evil.
See slavery, the black codes, jim crow laws, womens rights, religious freedom, environmental protectionism, coal mining in appalaicha, etc.
You still cant hold office in 7 states in the south if youre an athiest btw.
End Blue to Red state subsidies.
let the Red ones rot in their ancap dystopias?
Because there will be a lot of people in those areas who are not happy living under an ancap dystopia. Those states may even try to trap them there like Texas wants to do.
Imagine a couple moved to one of these ancap dystopias and have a kid. That kid turns out to be a big leftist and they hate not having rights.
We can’t just forget about the other states and only care about some. At that point, you can consider the United States to have fallen.
So long as there is free movement of people and basic democracy, if people hate it they can leave it or change it.
That also supposes that everyone can afford to move to somewhere they would like to be. There’s a reason the right wants people to stay where they are regardless of political affiliation. Those states tend to be full of poor folks living where they can afford to live. Not everyone has the privilege of living in a place that treats them they way they’d like to be treated.
No, I said freedom of movement AND basic democracy. It assumes that people have enough democratic rights that they can organize to change the laws in their own community.
It is a truism that oppression exists and that it affects exactly the people who can’t escape it. There are no shortcuts to freedom unfortunately. The American solution has been that some external authority, the federal government comes and resolves this. For the big things, slavery, apartheid, I get it. But for things below the threshold of crimes against humanity, it becomes trickier because then control of the Big Saviour starts being a critical battleground, it can turn into the Big Oppressor, and basically you might end up with the unworkable federalism you currently have.
deleted by creator
Because it would mean living in Wyoming.
Don’t threaten me with a good time.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/10/30/opinion/election-results-maps.html
https://purplestatesofamerica.org/
Yall should read How to Lie with Maps.
So the NYT wants to tell us we’re not as polarized as the maps may show?
Of course they do. Both Sides, you know. Other than that, the points about colors are well taken, it’s just so on-brand for NYT to have the editorial POV that everything’s normal, it’s fine.
How come they always color the places that don’t have anybody there as red?
Why can’t blue take it?
They are probably coloring whole counties, where the second map just makes a dot for each country proportional to population.
Thank you for actually understanding what the second map says. It’s shocking how many people in these comments were so easily fooled into thinking that is where the people live in the second map.
The other complication is that the second map is so potato you can’t see what color the smaller dots are and I think it gives overall a bluer impression than it would at higher quality.
Keep in mind both of these maps are grossly misleading. Or at least one is being presented in a misleading way.
One is just coloring an entire county the way the majority voted. This is why those huge (land) counties are all red, because at least 1 more person in it votes for trump than Biden (presumably, I don’t know what the map is actually based on but it’s a safe bet). So that’s why “the sand” is regularly colored red. Although saying noone lives these is misleading.
Which leads me to the second map is probably a noble effort to show some population scale, by reducing all of the counties to a circle the relative size of their population, but it’s being misrepresented here as if that’s where all of the people in those counties live, which is certainly false. Just look at the center of the country, it’s basically a grid of small dots. Do people honestly think the population is distributed like that?
The most frustrating thing about this is everyone in this thread is complaining about how Republicans are too stupid to understand why the map is colored the way it is…while being absolutely fooled as to why the other map is the way it is.
Possibly because unless you have an eight figure trust fund the GOP doesn’t help you, so if you vote Republican you are stupid?
Apparently, hating dumb Republicans doesn’t preclude you from being dumb yourself. Imagine that
Oh man, you got me so good. You forgot to tell me how your dad can beat up my dad.
It’s funny because my point was based off of what you actually said, your’s was just a mindless childish insult… ironically accusing me of making childish retorts.
It’s funny how much you see what you hate about yourself in other people.
The most frustrating thing about this is everyone in this thread is complaining about how Republicans are too stupid to understand why the map is colored the way it is…while being absolutely fooled as to why the other map is the way it is.
Fwiw I don’t think anyone’s “fooled” by the first map. Or (again, imo) that all republiQans are too stupid to understand why sand doesn’t vote.
I do think the first map is regularly used as a right-wing talking point by individuals and corporate news to “explain” how republiQans must be winning elections, and that explanation is false. Presumably many of the individuals and all corporate news organizations know that. Which is why it’s just straight-up propaganda.
My point is that the second map, at least the way it is being framed in this meme, is equally misleading.
What it is presumably showing is dot in the middle of each county (although clearly not in middle for places like the NE that are being pushed apart, but I think it’s true for like kansas/nebraska) that is scaled relative to the population of that county. It’s not necessarily where the people in that county live.
I get that Republicans use the former map to deceive and spread propaganda. What I’m pointing out is that is exactly what is happening with the way the second map is being framed in this meme. It’s pure absurdity for people to fall hook, line, and sinker for it. . .while shitting on the intelligence of people who fell hook, line, and sinker for another map being presented in a misleading way.
Oh right - well, again fwiw, I doubt people are lead to believe that midwest populations are laid out in perfect order like that.
Hm. That said, most midwest towns are laid out in some kind of grid. But that’s more about transportation than politics.
Both the title of the submission and the wording on the graph indicates otherwise.
It’s the same reason all around the world: India, China, Australia, Venezuela, Romania, Kenya: Hicks.
Hicks are everywhere. And they vote for regressive authoritarians for any number of reasons, most of them wrong.
Fear… Humans have an evolutionary and natural fear of the unknown… If you live way out in the middle of nowhere, pretty much everything outside your tiny bubble is unknown, and therefore scary. Then assholes come in and use that fear to their advantage. “Everything you’re afraid of IS horrible and out to get you! Vote for me and I’ll protect you”
I love classism
Oh there you go bringing class into it again
Again?
Oh, xd
Probably because 40 out of the 50 voters in those counties voted red.
Blue has abandoned anything outside cities. Their outreach is basically move to a city, which unsurprisingly isn’t popular there.
Question: do you think the MAJORITY of people should decide how they’re governed?
And that’s aside from the obvious fact that red team is currently pushing a convicted felon seditious child raping traitor as their defacto king?
According to you: they abandoned things outside cities, so they’re not popular inside of cities???
Lol tell me you’re ignorant without telling me you’re ignorant.
Because of the way the US handles elections.
Here’s a link to my other comment that explains it as I (a laymen) understand it as I was taught in school.
Guess i am no one. I live in one of those red areas. Oh and aint no sand out here just lots and lots of clay
If you live there then not no-one lives there. A higher resolution image would show you on there, waving.
8,000,000K
Id more be shooting the bird at nosey nellies snooping round my proppity
Consarn it!
Oh shit
Land doesn’t vote. People vote.
Why does the Senate exist then?
I’m not sure what you’re asking. The Senate isn’t based on land. Texas gets just as many votes in the Senate as Rohde Island.
State governments, which represent the people, vote.
Normally, in a democracy, you have two chambers for the legislature so that one of them is filled by popular vote from all over the country and the other by representatives allocated for administrative divisions.
In the US both chambers are allocated for predefined divisions, just on different scales (state vs slice of population), so the principle of the popular vote is not represented.
It does serve (in theory) to make up for a state that had lower population, but since the slices are subject to manipulation it’s debatable.
**Land SHOULDN’T vote.
Why does land determine who tells me what to do then?
Because the US electoral system is fundamentally broken?
What? It’s a worldwide thing, not just the US
Yes, to some extent it happens everywhere but the US has reduced the phenominon to its grotesque final form.
No, it happens to the same extent in basically anywhere that’s populated and can afford to enforce it
Ya…ok…
Abolish the senate.
Issue with this (because of first past the post) there are still a significant number of people voting the opposite way of who wins in their electorate, for the most part.
Thank you
there’s no lying like lying with maps
(for those ggr nerds, yes, “the map was a lie”)
Especially Google maps, they persuaded my friend to turn right and now he thinks corporations are people.
never considered online service maps much as political maps, but of course they are. What gets mapped as POI tells people what they are to find interesting and what not vice versa.
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
deleted by creator
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.
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
Sam Kinison reference. You are a gentleman and a scholar.
“We have deserts in America. We just don’t fucking live in them!”
