YSK most US states assign their electoral college votes by the state's popular vote

Submitted ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨Reyali@lemm.ee⁩ to ⁨youshouldknow@lemmy.world⁩

I’ve seen several people claim that their state’s vote for the US presidential election doesn’t matter because their district is gerrymandered, which does not matter for most states.

Most states use the state’s popular vote to determine who the entire state’s electoral college votes go to. No matter how gerrymandered your district is*, every individual vote matters for assigning the electoral vote. Every single district in a state could go red but the state goes blue for president because of the popular vote.

*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.

source

Comments

Sort:hotnew top

Broken_Monitor@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
YSK the electoral college can get fucked.

source
- Randelung@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Gogo Interstate Compact!
  
  source
Today@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
It creates maps like this that make people stay home because they believe their vote doesn’t count.

Image

source
- atx_aquarian@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  For me, it’s helpful to remember what the underlying reality is.
  
  Image
  
  When those votes are counted, the resulting electoral votes align to those votes, which results in maps like what you showed. When strategists tune their messages to target demographics they can divide (e.g., rural vs. urban), they’re playing a game of inches, and that’s still the reality, even if it doesn’t feel like it.
  
  Keep voting, everyone!
  
  source
  - alilbee@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Hey, that’s a neat image. I’ve seen other ways of visualizing the popular vote on a map but this one looks wonky as hell and I like it.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - tanisnikana@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    My brain instinctively rejects that image. Not cause it isn’t accurate; it’s showing what it’s supposed to.
    
    But really, that the shape of it is hostile and threatening and it looks vaguely biological and some creepy shit gets sent up and down my spine about it.
    
    source
- Reyali@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  That’s precisely what prompted this post: conversations with friends in Texas who said their presidential vote didn’t count because of gerrymandering.
  
  I agree districts are fucked, but that doesn’t affect the electoral college outcome. Texas is leaning more blue every year and getting everyone who feels like their vote doesn’t matter out and voting anyway is the first step to changing it. (One example source
  
  The state has 30 million people. Of those, 8M are in the Dallas area, 7.5M are in the Houston area, and about 5M between San Antonio and Austin. That means over 20 million of the state residents live in one of the 4 largest metro areas which are all majority blue.
  
  Yet only 11M voted in 2020. National average turnout in the 2020 election was 66% but Texas was less than 40%, and it’s because of the exact sentiment you called out.
  
  II’m from Texas (but don’t live there now) and I know how disheartening the voting season always felt. I want to fight the perception I’ve heard now from multiple people in Texas that their vote for president doesn’t mean anything, because it absolutely could if everyone gets out to vote.
  
  source
  - Today@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    That’s what hurts so much! The people on the street and the images on tv are so wildly different. In most cases - there’s a bar in Harper that’s probably best to just avoid.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- TexasDrunk@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Yep. It creates voter apathy in statewide races. Texas is in the top 10 lowest in voter turnout. A lot of liberal folks don’t vote due to gerrymandering and due to shit like the state meddling in Harris county and the small number of voting locations in big blue areas.
  
  source
  - Reyali@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Exactly what I’m trying to help counter! In just 24 hours I heard two people I know from Texas mention that the presidential vote was affected by gerrymandering. I did my research to confirm that was wrong and have been trying to help fix that false belief since then.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- badhops@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Maps like that are generated to deceive one from the start… They want people to believe all the soil will vote red
  
  source
- lordnikon@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  yeah it’s almost like land can’t vote just people
  
  source
- Carighan@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I mean to be fair, Texas is a scary thought. It would make me stay home, too. 😜
  
  source
  - Today@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I live in a blue zone and most reds i interact with are fairly normalish. They’re lake people or church people or those guys that always have a joke or funny story.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Not to nitpick, because I completely support what you’re saying, (EVERYBODY VOTE!!!) but, I don’t think it’s mathematically possible for EVERY district to go red and the electorals go blue.

source
- alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  He should have said almost every.
  
  But thanks for pointing out the mathematical truth ☝️
  
  source
- Reyali@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Ok, fair point, lol.
  
  source
- Cuberoot@lemmynsfw.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Not nationally, but because Maine uses both Instant runoff voting for presidential elections, and the Congressional district method of assigning electors, it’s mathematically possibly for Maine to split its electors 2-2. eg, the Republican wins both districts individually, while the Democrat wins statewide. Not this year though – needs a competitive 3-way race so the runoffs matter.
  
  source
- Snazz@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Theoretically the electorals could go blue without winning any districts. It would require a third party to win at least one district though.
  
  source
AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
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.

source
- Reyali@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  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.
  
  source
- Buelldozer@lemmy.today ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  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.
  
  source
YeetPics@mander.xyz ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
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)

source
- Reyali@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  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?
  
  source
- lordnikon@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  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
  
  source
roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
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.

source
Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
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?

source
- Cort@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Both actually. Each state gets 2 plus the proportional split 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.
  
  source
- Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  It’s assigned proportionally but you get 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).
  
  fairvote.org/why-james-madison-wanted-to-change-t…
  
  source
- Croquette@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  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.
  
  source
  - LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    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)
    
    source
reddig33@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
You should know the Electoral College is ridiculous and should be abolished.

source
- Reyali@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  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.
  
  source
uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
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:

Voter suppression

Registration purges

Intimidation (threats)

Intimidation (actual violence)

procedural shennanigans

outright election fraud

violent coup d’etat
source
wetnoodle@sopuli.xyz ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
The electoral college can lick my rectum polished

source