The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.
All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.
Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:
**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!
You should vote regardless (downballot blue votes also help resist the creep towards obe-party autocracy).
At the same time, be aware of efforts that might be active in your area to disqualify you:
Do states have more or less electoral votes based on population?
Like would California have more say in who becomes president than Idaho?
Or is it that stupid system where each state has an equal amount of votes?
Both actually. Each state gets 2 plus the proportional split ( based on population)of the remaining 435. So California as a whole has more say than Idaho as a whole but each individual voter in California has less say than an individual voter in Idaho.
It's assigned proportionally but each state gets a few extra votes to give smaller states more weight.
Originally, states would then award these proportionally, but some state got "smart" and realized that if they gave all their votes to the most popular candidate they'd get more attention ... other states soon followed suite and Madison went and died before he could fix this abuse of the system (which bothered him).
https://fairvote.org/why-james-madison-wanted-to-change-the-way-we-vote-for-president/
Inbetween. Each state has a number of voters for the electoral college, but it is not proportional to the population of the state. A less populous state vote is worth more than a populous state generally.
That is why Trump became president while losing the popular vote in 2016, and swing states are so important.
Population of a state does dictate the number of electorial votes, which is why California has 54. Florida surpassed population of NY a few years back and now you will see Florida has 30, while NY has 28. On the other hand population is disproportionately represented when it comes to the Senate, because each state has 2 senators, regardless of population.
"Swing states" are just important in the fact that if you already know 60% of a state will vote red/blue you don't need to campaign there as much, because convincing 10% of the population to change their mind is harder than convincing 3%.
That said, Texas is seen as "Red" and people claim Florida is "Red" these days as well. A 3% flop in 2020 would have made both states blue.
Note that every state that gained electorial votes since last election I believe is expected to vote red though, as they are usually tied to lower taxes and cost of living, which many people I believe moved to when remote work became more prominent (others will argue because people moved for other reasons but that's neither here nor there when it comes to the number of electors part)
Even in Maine and Nebraska, two of their electrical votes are statewide just some are allocated to CDs. A state's electrical votes are determined by their total number of senators and representatives. The ones that correspond to the two senators are statewide.
The electoral college can lick my rectum polished
But if you live in a state that is overwhelmingly one party, your states votes are going to go to that candidate. I live in California, and there not much chance that any California delegates are going to go to Trump. True, the districts didn't matter for the EC votes, but that doesn't mean everyone's vote counts the same.
Also worth mentioning that the number of votes each state gets is based on very outdated logic.
It would be different if there were no EC and it was decided based on the national popular vote.
True, some states are too extreme to ever flip. Then other states like Texas or North Carolina are perceived as firmly in one camp, but they might not be if everyone actually voted.
Also worth mentioning that the number of votes each state gets is based on very outdated logic.
The logic is basically sound but we borked the shit out of the system with the Re-Apportionment Act of 1929.
That needs to repealed / replaced / updated with something like the Wyoming Rule.
You should know the Electoral College is ridiculous and should be abolished.
I don’t disagree, but it’s the system we have and I want to ensure people aren’t disenfranchising themselves in states that could swing the opposite way if everyone actually voted.
YSK the electoral college can get fucked.
Gogo Interstate Compact!
Doesn't that mean the states are just gerrymandered voting districts?
Only way I can parse nominees winning while earning fewer popular votes than their peers.. cough (Republicans)
You could look at it that way. I think gerrymandering specifically refers to lines being drawn specifically to create advantage or disadvantage in voting though, and we don’t move state lines that way. So it’s more just like bad district allocation?
also gerrymandering only counts for the house not the senate and president on a national level. plus you have tons of non party votes at the local level
Maine and Nebraska are the notable differences who allot individual electors based on the popular vote within their congressional districts and the overall popular vote. It’s possible there are other exceptions and I’m sure commenters will happily point them out.
I mean, this just says "I didn't research things and you shouldn't take what I say seriously" to me.
I don't like this perspective ... you're effectively punishing honesty about uncertainty which is almost certainly why so many politician themselves pretend to have super powers, perfect foresight, control, and what not.
Like, can we just have a discussion accepting that op acknowledge they don't know everything? ... because nobody knows everything.
I see your point. There was just something about the wording that really made it feel unfinished/unverified to me and led me down the path of thought I went on. Of course, very few people in the world know everything on a given topic and no one is infallible. I guess it was just the phrasing that really made me suspicious.
It means I didn’t go look at the laws of 50 different states, correct. Doesn’t mean I didn’t do any research at all; I did confirm for multiple states where I heard people saying this (OH, NC, and TX) and I confirmed that only those two states allocate votes based on districts while all others allocate all voters to one candidate. Maybe there’s some other method out there other than district-driven or popular vote–driven; I’m holding space that I could be unaware of something rather than trying to claim I know everything.
I took it to mean "I don't know if this is actually true or not, but I'm going to post it anyway" which is exactly where tons of quickly-spreading misinformation comes from and how it gets passed on.
Specifically, the claim that it's the popular vote overall seems off to me, though I don't currently have time to look into it (I did some quick googling but did not get a conclusive answer). What I mean to say is that, yes, all of the electoral votes are allocated to whomever is considered a winner and it is not proportional (except in two states). I was under the impression, however, that it went by districts so whomever won the most districts got the full share of votes (i.e. not the overall statewide popular vote).
I took it to mean "I don't know if this is actually true or not, but I'm going to post it anyway" which is exactly where tons of quickly-spreading misinformation comes from and how it gets passed on.
followed by:
though I don't currently have time to look into it
Seriously?
I had to start work and I was talking about actual post rather than comments, but I suppose that's a fair criticism. I did mean it to mean that I was coming back to it (as I am now).
And what you’re saying now is, “What you said doesn’t align to what I think, so I’m sure you’re wrong.”
So here’s proof:
Of the 50 states, all but two award all of their presidential electors to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote in the state (Maine and Nebraska each award two of their electors to the candidate who wins a plurality of the statewide vote; the remaining electors are allocated to the winners of the plurality vote in the states' congressional districts). (source)
And what you’re saying now is, “What you said doesn’t align to what I think, so I’m sure you’re wrong.”
I had to start work so sorry for the delayed response. No, I didn't assert that you were wrong. I did say the wording left a lot of room to be suspicious.
I appreciate the source above and, indeed, it looks like I was wrong on that specific part (at least according to three other source, including ballotpedia).
Edit for clarity: my reasoning was not "you are wrong because I don't agree" but rather the wording itself just gave me an off feeling (even had I agreed with it fully).
Thanks for the clarification on your intent. I understand (and appreciate) skepticism; however, I took your original comment to be a dig rather than helpful criticism, but your clarification here helps me read it more positively.
Someone else commented and used words that aligned with my intent behind the comment, which was just to leave open the door that there are nuances I may be uninformed about. But I recognize I could have been more explicit about what research I had done to maybe establish a little more credibility.
Thanks for responding with such a level head!
Yeah, I actually felt bad last night about my wording choice and explanation, so apologies for that. Thank you as well for engaging. Cheers!
I dunno, you haven't even pointed anything out yet.
Generally, the person stating a claim is the one that needs to substantiate that claim. If someone makes a post and then says in their own post "I'm probably not right but I can't be bothered to check yet am still going to post anyway", that strikes me as lazy at best and vain or shady at worst.
I think you're getting downvotes because you're projecting a narrative onto @Reyali and using quotes around non-quotes. They didn't say they were "probably not right."
I agree, everyone should be skeptical of information someone else is sharing, because we can't assume intention. But what would motivate someone to say "I'm probably not right" anyway?
What's interesting to me is that for you, your guard went up for someone admitting a potential of having missed something, which may make you more susceptible to people who are confidently wrong.
Most others' reaction is the opposite, taking their statement as an attempt to be genuine and open to feedback. If someone invites feedback, is willing to admit they might be wrong, that's a much better starting point for conversation.