1285
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 267 points 1 month ago

Luckily for the red side, the system’s designed so that sand can vote

[-] finley@lemm.ee 82 points 1 month ago

and their votes count more than your city votes!

[-] niktemadur@lemmy.world 45 points 1 month ago

I can hear their goddamned chants...

Every square yard counts!
Every square yard counts!

When it suits them. That is basically how it does work, to their benefit. If it benefitted Democrats, well then... "that's entirely different, see?", they'd be screaming to high heaven at the "unfair librul conspiracy to take over the government!"

[-] ccunning@lemmy.world 32 points 1 month ago

Every square yard counts!
Every square yard counts!

“Never fight uphill me boys!”

[-] Gork@lemm.ee 15 points 1 month ago

Trump comes up with the strangest lines, I swear.

Despite the constant negative press covfefe

It was a Perfect phone call

We're going to win bigly

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Klear@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago

I hate that.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago

Yep. Thanks slavery! A great idea that just keeps givin’

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] PunnyName@lemmy.world 88 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

This country was founded on the idea that land is power and land owners get to vote.

We need to change that. Peacefully first. But if that doesn't work...peaceful protesting only works for so long.

[-] Crowfiend@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

¡VIVA LA PROLETARIAT! DEATH TO THE RICH!

[-] NotAnotherLemmyUser@lemmy.world 72 points 1 month ago
[-] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 1 month ago

I don't think it is relevant.

The xkcd points out distribution and population.

The second map highlights how much more democratic the us is than republican and that is it obviously a broken system that republican's have a chance of winning

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] evidences@lemmy.world 51 points 1 month ago

I doubt anyone will disagree with me but "look at how red this map is" is the stupidest arguement.

Last year after ana election my dad reposted a map on Facebook like this but for the single issue on our states ballot. The comment from the original poster was something like liberal cities decided this all counties need representation. Of course the counties that weren't blue were mostly populated by cows.

But like seriously this was a direct popular vote on a single issue you can't get a more representative election than that one.

[-] trafficnab@lemmy.ca 32 points 1 month ago

My favorite thing to do with these people is to ask them "okay, would it be alright if these issues were decided on a per-county basis then?", if they say no they've outed themselves as just wanting to hold as much control over others as possible from a minority position, if they say yes ask again but with individual towns, if they say yes to that, then you narrow it down to individual people, then they tend to get mad when they realize what you've done

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] wolfpack86@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

Yep. There are currently three heavy biases favoring the rural population. -senate (by design) -the house --not by design, but because the representation was capped at 435. It hasn't grown with population and thus a citizen in Wyoming gets more representation than a citizen in California (or Texas for that matter) -the presidency by virtue of the above two being biased.

Fix house apportionment, let the Senate be the safeguard, and the presidency will have a very slight protection by nature of the electors via what matches the Senate.

This is all in line with the framing of the Constitution, but it gives up power to "the bad guys" (aka the actual majority)

[-] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 46 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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.

[-] Emerald@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] PanArab@lemm.ee 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Why don’t the Blue states just enact social democratic policies and let the Red ones rot in their ancap dystopias?

If we assume that the Democratic Party actually wants to do good and not just what their donors want. They still have to contend with a Senate that's is biased towards the empty states, and even the House of Representatives is somewhat biased but not as bad.

Now if the Blue States (or even Counties) form some kind of union to transcend the USA, things might begin to happen.

The EU is a patchwork of rights for example

The EU is a confederacy. It has a much weaker central government and much stronger states. The US could go back to a confederacy model.

load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 45 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Good luck trying to get an American conservative to understand what the second map represents. I means shit, they refuse to grasp the concept of "per capita" because they know it makes them look bad.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago

gasp Are you suggesting, good sir, that republiQans may in fact not be arguing a particular point in good faith???

NO! I cannot believe it.

[-] njm1314@lemmy.world 43 points 1 month ago

That huge red circles Phoenix right?

[-] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 33 points 1 month ago

Why would a popular video game character get his own spot on this map?

[-] deus@lemmy.world 27 points 1 month ago

Ace Attorney is just that popular in Arizona

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 42 points 1 month ago

Hey, that's not fair. Some of that is also sagebrush and pine trees. And some of it is cool rocks.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

I’ll allow it.

[-] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 31 points 1 month ago

Land doesn't vote. People vote.

[-] lseif@sopuli.xyz 51 points 1 month ago

**Land SHOULDN'T vote.

[-] Phegan@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

Abolish the senate.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 1 month ago

there's no lying like lying with maps

(for those ggr nerds, yes, "the map was a lie")

[-] flonker@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

Especially Google maps, they persuaded my friend to turn right and now he thinks corporations are people.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ObsidianZed@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago

Is the top image a map someone tried to push as the ratio of red vs blue counties?

[-] EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world 38 points 1 month ago

That’s often how it gets portrayed, yes.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Crowfiend@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

As others have said, yes it is. Unfortunately it's also a strong representation of how the voting process operates in the US. At the local level (towns and cities), individual votes matter. However, for something like the presidential election (for example), then the votes are averaged by county and state.

So what happens is everyone from a county votes, and if that county is more of one side than the other, that entire county is "voting x/y". Then the counties across the state are compared, and that state is declared as "voting" for either side. Then nationally, each state is counted as either/or, so even if the more populated cities vote one way, if enough of the rural population votes the other way, the rural side wins, and the urban side loses.

It's almost as if the system urgently needs reform. Too bad the powers in charge of that were elected specifically because of it.

[-] SSJMarx@lemm.ee 20 points 1 month ago

I don't like sand. It's rough, and coarse, and irritating - and it gets everywhere.

[-] UltraMagnus0001@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago
[-] AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 1 month ago
load more comments (10 replies)
[-] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 month ago

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] thenextguy@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You know what it's going to be 100 years from now?

IT'S GONNA BE SAND!!

-- RIP Sam Kinnison

[-] ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net 13 points 1 month ago

How come they always color the places that don't have anybody there as red?

Why can't blue take it?

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago

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.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] paysrenttobirds@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 month ago

They are probably coloring whole counties, where the second map just makes a dot for each country proportional to population.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[-] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

Well Biden just stepped down from the elections

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

I loved finding this out from a random comment on Lemmy. The interweb’s still got it!

[-] nifty@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

Voter turnout is important, then

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] InternetUser2012@lemmy.today 11 points 1 month ago

VOTE, volunteer to give rides to those that can't make it otherwise if you can

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2024
1285 points (98.4% liked)

Political Memes

5168 readers
2396 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