I just took the graphic literally without trying to guess which body (presumably in the US) this might represent.
If I need more information to understand the implication of this graphic than it imparts on me, then it’s not very informative.
At no point does it imply proportional representation or that blue has a majority in some form of parliament.
So if blue just “wins” then red isn’t represented at all. And I’m pretty sure there are election systems like this, including the US presidential election, or am I mistaken there?
kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 3 days ago
What do you think “districts” means? Each district gets representing for the whole body, whatever body that may be. If you need that explained to you, okay, but don’t then lecture others on minutae of semantics when you arent familiar with what the word “district” entails.
And the U.S. President is not elected like this, no. There is no districting involved in US Presidential elections, at least not currently and not directly. It is far stupider than that, unfortunately. Each state has so many districts on the federal level based on population of the whole state (minimum 1), and each district gets a federal representative in the US House of Representatives wing of congress. Each state also gets 2 and only 2 Senate seats regardless of population in that wing of congress. The Presidency is actually determined by the votes of Electors in the Electoral College. Each state gets as many Electors as they have seats in both the Senate and House, and it has nothing to do with how the districts in that state are subdivided or what party their Representatives are from.
Now, each state gets to determine for itself how they run their elections, how they assign their Electors, and even whether their electors are required to vote the same way as their state, so things can be pretty complicated. In many states, it is winner take all for that state’s Electors, with the winner being the one with the plurality of votes in a FPTP election, which is dumb as fuck. Some others assign their Electors proportionally. There is even a slowly growing coalition of states that, once they reach a plurality of Electors in the coalition, have agreed to no longer assign their Electors on a state by state basis, but on the national popular vote instead. Again, within each of these states, rules differ on the relative power of the Electors themselves to vote according to their own desires even if that goes against the state’s popular vote. It’s a giant fucking mess, it leads many many people in hard red or blue states to just to just not bother as their vote will be overwhelmed anyway, which is why the Electoral College should just be eliminated and replaced with a national popular vote. But that is a whole other story.
geissi@feddit.org 2 days ago
A subsection of a larger unit, here the subsections of a rectangle. What does that have to do with me not guessing what the rectangle represents?
Ok, so there is an election system like the one I criticized in the US, just not in every state.
Would you then say, that this is better than “winner takes all” and that “blue wins” is not perfect?
kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 2 days ago
No… because in the example, it was NOT winner take all. Blue one the majority of districts. Red won the other districts. Nobody took all. I feel like you are trying really hard to misunderstand a VERY simple hypothetical example. Yes, winner take all states for electors is bullshit, but that is NOT what is happening in the example, for thr love of god!