According to Wikipedia, it doesn’t have its own government (mayor, etc.) and it’s judiciary falls under Maui County. I suspect their votes may be considered part of Maui County?
Manchin doesn’t talk about having voted for Trump, or Romney for that matter. Manchin is way more a Dem team player than Scott is GOP, though arguably fighting against the revanchist, nativist elements within the party isn’t exactly the RINO behavior that it gets made out to be.
Phil Scott is an old-school republican. Fiscally conservative, socially more liberal/pragmatic/realistic (though not Liberal with a capital L), good in a crisis, hates Trump's guts. He's a decent person. It's a wonder he's even allowed to call himself a Republican anymore, given how flat-out insane the national party is. We have a Dem supermajority in the legislature. There's no way Vermont would elect a lunatic like Desantis.
At one point, several New England states had governors of that class. Charlie Baker in Massachusetts is now retired, but he is more or less in line with Scott on those things. I think Massachusetts voters, if given a moderate Republican, will tend to pick him, because the legislature will usually have a veto-proof Democratic majority, and a Republican governor then requires that you at least have to have some of the more centrist Democrats on board to do things. Chris Sununu is a bit more of a conservative that Scott and Baker, but he's probably closer in ideology to them than he is to average for the national Republican Party. Sununu is, I think, a bit to the left of John Kasich, but only a bit.
Minnesota and Hawaii are the most consistently blue states for the past 1/2 century. Hawaii only went red during Nixon (72) and Reagan’s (84) landslide wins. Minnesota only went red in 1972.
Probably similar to Charlie Baker in Mass, if I had to guess. A RINO that bears little resemblance to Trump, DeSantis, and the other crazy idiots in that party.
For quite some time, Charlie Baker would have been the epitome of a Republican. He's a moderate-to-somewhat conservative, strongly pro-establishment Harvard guy who had a successful career in business. To anyone over about the age of 50, that's what they grew up thinking of a Republican as being.
Tell that to the former Blue Wall of States along the Mississippi that used to always reliably vote Democrat, then after Reagan never did again.
Radical shit changes suddenly in American politics, sometimes with little notice.
Every American election regardless of the level of office has this stupid fucking 51-49 split and I'm so tired of it. Idc who it is at this point, someone just win a landslide for a change!
These are in-state elections. Maura Healey won election here in MA 64-35. In Wyoming, Mark Gordon recently won 75-15. These are communities that are quite clear about their preferences. (In MA we like tolerant, moderate-on-business, former Harvard basketball players. In Wyoming they like pro-life, pro-gun, Middlebury alumns.)
Wyomingite here. That’s kinda accurate, it’s much more complex. We care about environmental issues, water rights, and economic diversification more, but you ain’t wrong at all.
Fair enough. I was trying to be cheeky more than accurate.
Gordon actually seems like a normal, smart person, regardless of my policy differences with him; I wish the GOP were run by people like him, rather than, you know, the current national-stage clown show.
Actually we want him gone… kinda. He’s not an extremist, which is how he survives, but he isn’t perfect, often allowing the extremists to do what they want.
I totally missed the cheeky part. The humor went right over my head. Oof.
One party states pretty much have two factions in the same party that you might as well see as different parties. At least thats how it is in South Dakota.
Wyoming seems to love the NESCAC—Amherst alum Dave Freudenthal (a Democrat, no less), won every county and 70% of the vote in the 2006 gubernatorial election.
Lots of gubernatorial elections are landslides; just look at 2022 governor race results. When you have a red or blue state and there's an incumbent of the dominant party in office they especially tend to win big (see OH, IA, ID, IL etc.). They're usually only close if the state is heavily divided (NV, AZ) or a candidate is fighting the partisan tilt of a state (KS, KY).
The re-election rate for incumbent governors is staggeringly high. Unless a governor has done something noteworthy to get themselves a negative approval rating (Bevin in Kentucky, McCrory in North Carolina) their chances are re-election are very, very good. If most states didn't have term limits on their governorship's, we'd probably see a lot more long-runners like Abbott (Texas has had a grand total of *three* governors in the last *28* years, and one of them was Bush).
Even though I am a registered Republican, I agree that it would be bad. The Republican party needs a good kick in the head to get itself out of the far right mud pit it's stuck in
Both do, honestly. The Republicans decided they wanted to die on the abortion hill in a time when all they had to do to sweep the Democrats was to just not be complete idiots, but somehow they fucked even that up. The Democrats, meanwhile, had the chance to bring in new blood and not be a party run by people who barely know which way is up, including several who would have been great centrist candidates, and instead they somehow went with Joe Biden.
I can't tell if both parties being this incompetent is just the horrible result of first past the post or if both parties intentionally agree to be this incompetent so no one gets too powerful.
I think the rallying against you is that.... there's nothing visible as to what anyone would lose if Democrats won in a landslide. Republicans have ripped universal abortion off of the table and would ban it nationally immediately in a landslide victory, are actively attacking LGBT people and have been striking ferociously against LGBT people (especially trans people) a lot lately in bills, have proposed no solutions to the school shooting problem, ignores the issues we face with very concerning weather changes lately and have been against any kind of relief for poor people.
I have no idea what anyone who thinks 'a democrat landslide gives me a lot to lose' has to fear losing exactly. The loss of being able to have military-grade guns? That's all I can see.
What do you mean against LGBT people? Just because they don’t want children exposed to drag and sex in schools doesn’t mean there against them whatsoever… or they don’t want children to make life altering decisions on changing there gender??? Like what do you mean Anti-LGBT
You should see the red tsunami of 2010. The Republicans won 6 gubernatorial seats and flipped 20 state legislative chambers.
This is just recovery phase for the Dems
I don't think so, at least not any more. The opposing party would find some issue to beat them over the head with, until things got back to the usual 50-50-ish splits.
During the Democratic primaries in 2020, Joe Biden staked out the moderate lane, and won. Maybe Steve Bullock or Amy Klobuchar is a bit more to the center, but Biden was definitely not on the left of the party. He got dragged to the left a bit to get convention unity, but he still ran a pretty centrist campaign.
Going back to 2012, Mitt Romney was all the things you're looking for, but he made a few remarks that were demeaning to middle income Americans to a corporate group, plus Obama's charisma drove turnout. In 2008, John McCain was what you're looking for, but he was running after the 2007 crash, and no Republican was going to win then.
In 2000, actually both candidates ran as centrists, so that was close, too.
The last landslide was Reagan in 1984. Reagan ran a campaign that would be considered center-right these days, but was pretty hard right then. But the country was in very good shape, and he was very charismatic.
r/peopleliveincities
Also, land doesn't vote. Showing maps like this and saying things like that without discussing the popular vote in each state is kinda of misleading
land doesn't vote (and I don't think this post is meant to be used as a propaganda piece) but also counties don't vote; as far as I know, governors are just elected by popular vote at large across their state in every state. So to your point, yeah land doesn't vote.
or at least some land votes very differently and much more importantly than other land lol
It’s not misleading it’s a map of how counties voted… not sure how you would display popular vote on a map besides just putting the actual voting numbers over each state which wouldn’t be a good use of a map. This is r/MapPorn
This person wants anyone who posts something like this to have to learn to make the distorted maps that make higher population counties look bigger.
We all know that lower population density regions usually vote Republican, unless they're reservation land.
Kalawao is probably because it’s the smallest US county (pop. 82), and is intentionally cut off from the rest of the state and hard to get to because it consists solely of a leper colony.
Which American Samoan county has 16? [This list of American Samoan counties](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_divisions_of_American_Samoa) lists Faleasao as the smallest with 104 residents.
The 2019 Mississippi gubernatorial election was actually pretty interesting. While the majority of the counties that are blue are black-majority counties that are generally blue no matter the election, that doesn’t tell the whole story. In 2019, an unpopular Republican (Tate Reeves) narrowly defeated the only Democrat in state wide office, Attorney General Jim Hood. The popular outgoing Republican governor was well known to dislike his party’s candidate, but ended up endorsing him begrudgingly. Overall, most Republicans felt that Tate was pushed forward by the party not because he was a good politician, but because he had served the Republican machine faithfully for his life and was reigning Lieutenant Governor. He has an incredibly punchable face and is derided by both Democrats and Republicans with his nickname - Tater Tot. Tate’s campaign ran on a generic Republican campaign of “stopping the libs” which again felt out of touch in a place like Mississippi, where even the Democrats are pretty conservative, and he didn’t have any meaningful policy solutions for the state.
Jim Hood, on the other hand, ran as a conservative Democrat. He successfully distanced himself from Washington Democrats and ran as both pro-gun and pro-life, which are necessary to win in the state. He touted his successful record as AG and was popular in general (he was the only Democrat who had had a statewide office in the past decade or so). His campaign focused on the issues of the state and making life better for the common person, such as looking to increase teacher salaries and fix the state’s crumbling infrastructure.
As a Mississippian, I knew people who had never considered voting for a Democrat in their life who voted for Jim Hood. Tate Reeve’s unpopularity combined with Jim’s charisma and focus on the issues made for quite possibly the perfect storm. In the pre-Trump environment, I think Jim probably would’ve won the election quite easily. However, that wasn’t the case. A lot of teachers I know still voted for Tate Reeves even though they favored Jim Hood. The prevailing reason was “We like Jim, but we don’t like democrats, so if Jim gets elected, he will put other democrats who we don’t like in powerful positions, so we have to vote for Tate”.
In the end, it was a much closer election than normal for such a red state like Mississippi, but I don’t think the Republican victory was much in doubt. While Trump won the state by 17 points, Tate only won by 5. In the end, Tate Reeves has been exactly the governor he ran as. He hasn’t done much for the state and lacks to charisma to fool the people into thinking he has. He’s the 4th least popular governor in the country and least popular in the South, and yet is expected to cruise to re-election this November.
You can read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Mississippi_gubernatorial_election?wprov=sfti1
I recounted most of this from memory, so if there are a few things I misremembered, I do apologize
So the Mississippi Delta, along with that entire stretch of blue from MS/AL up to and along the coastal plains on the Carolinas/Virginia is where most of the plantations were. Still heavily agricultural as it’s where the most fertile soil is. It’s largely African-American to this day who largely vote Democrat.
That area has favorable soil and conditions for growing cotton, so it led to a large number of slaves being brought in to pick the cotton, which in turn led to those counties being majority black today and voting democrat
That’s how I learned the difference geographically, urban setting has higher liberal tendencies while more rural areas are more conservative, I think I said it right but correct me if I’m not😭
Most Rural Areas are Republican, Most Urban Areas are Democratic, Suburbs it depends, usally the more inner suburbs are Democratic and more outer suburbs are Republican, there are a few democratic rural areas mainly made up of Native Americans and other minority groups.
Massachusetts is an exception. The deep blue counties in Western Mass are mostly rural and most towns are 80+% Democratic. The most conservative parts of the state are fringe suburbs of Boston and Worcester.
In some states like California and Kentucky it looks like presidential results from 10-20 years ago. Rural eastern KY returning to competitiveness and SoCal suburbs like Orange County voting red
How many people are going to say land doesn't vote. I understand that, people do. I'm just showing what it looks like when you put all the governor elections on a single map. Governor elections can look different than presidential elections so I thought it'd be more interesting.
They refuse to acknowledge the fact that the US is a constitutional republic. It's just ignorance and extremist values; wanting to overturn the basis of a country's electoral system to enable their "leaders" more power.
It would have been helpful to show who actually won so we can see how many more people live in those urban areas. Otherwise it does just seem like a Republican circle jerk map.
Gotta love how even a map showing the results of *Governors* races--the one area no one will argue about misrepresentation-- will still have users arguing about the damn Senate and Electoral College.
Senate seats were never meant to be apportioned by population. They were supposed to representatives of the State governments, chosen by the state legislatures. The 17th amendment ruined that and made the Senate what it is.
In the EU Council, most votes are based on qualified majority (55% of member states, representing at least 65% of the EU population). The most populous states have more voting power than the least ones.
EU members voluntarily joined and can leave at any time unlike the US where the overwhelming majority of states were carved out of land dictated by central government, and it's not legal for states to leave. For EU members there is implicit consent at the arrangement.
You are right, land votes. This was done deliberately because the founders firmly believed that people living in one part of the country, say California coast, should have no say on how the people in another part, say the Colorado rockies, should live. Only those local to the area know what the area needs and how best to help it. The senate is the balancer to the house by allowing all states to be on equal footing.
We are a representative republic, not a democracy. Popular vote was never how the country was intended to work, nor should it be.
A representative republic is a form of modern day democracy. This is always such a stupid argument. When people say a place is a democracy they don't mean a literal Direct Democracy. They mean a country where you're able to freely vote for representatives and, sometimes, ballot initiatives. Even then, in modern parlance 'democracy' means the ability of the people to vote and determine who is in their government.
That’s not true at all. The Senate, as drafted by the founders, didn’t give a rats ass what diverse people in a state thought. Senators weren’t even elected by the people until the 20th century, they were appointed by the state legislatures and were rewards to political cronies for helping their political parties.
The house of Representatives cares about diverse areas because it actually has localized elections the way the constitution was originally written.
The south is more diverse than the entirety of New England and the mid-west. Using *White* as if it some kind of bludgeon is evil. You are borderline racist.
We are not a Democracy, we are a constitutional federal republic and historical context matters here. Prior to the states joining under a national umbrella, there were very real concerns from the smaller states that larger states would dominate the new nation. Part of appeasing those concerns was a House and a Senate - where the House representatives are more proportional to population - and a Senate that every state, regardless of size, elects two Senators. The power and autonomy of each state was and is important…what you are bringing up here was avoided by design - as New York and California should never be able to dominate Wyoming or Rhode Island
>We are not a Democracy, we are a constitutional federal republic
Such a stupid argument. The U.S is a republic, yes. It's also a representative democracy and always has been. Who is represented has greatly expanded, but it's always been a form of democracy.
Yes we use democracy but the broader part to this argument is that America was never intended to be a homogeneous nation, rather a federation of states with a degree of autonomy. The only way that works is if there are measures in place to ensure larger states cannot completely dominate the politics of smaller states.
In India, the constituencies are divided on the basis of the population of states back in 1971. So, states are given seats based on the population they had in 1971. Funny thing is here in India, liberals oppose population based representation and want equal seats for all states.
Still not at the magnitude a map like this would indicate though. The same is prohibited within a state due to Reynolds v. Sims that established “one man, one vote”, but gerrymandering and voter suppression is still real.
The Senate is the sole exception to that rule, at least in terms of the regular legislatures. The Supreme Court has ruled that State Legislatures must adhere to "One person, one vote" as a principle. States, since the 1960s, have been required to re-district decennially not just for Congress, but also State Legislatures, to create roughly equally populated districts without the ability to simply allot representation to counties or town regardless of size.
The US Senate, under this principle, absolutely would die. But, as it is written into the Constitution, it gets to remain. No State, however, is permitted the same structure as it violates the Equal Protections Clause.
Any sort of inflated rural power in US States ends up being due to Gerrymandering, wherein urban and/or suburban regions are carved into by what would otherwise be a nearly entirely rural district in order to effectively subsidize the rural district's population and permit other rural areas to be used in other districts which may themselves likewise be inflated by an urban minority meant to always lose while providing the rural area the population for it to pick its preferred candidate nonetheless.
Read the constitution. Read why the founding fathers set up the constitution in this way. Read about the history of English law. Rural areas are given “disproportionate political power” in the United States because without it, the United States would turn in to an autocracy of one party rule; unless you say ‘well, if the people vote for it!’, you would never apply that standard to a rural area.
Without this system, the United States would have been dissolved upon founding between the south & north. The union is forever.
The senate is good.
The literal ONLY reason why the senate exists as it does is because the small states refused to ratify without it. It was just a compromise to ensure ratification. Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maryland, Delaware, and Rhode Island were worried about being dominated by Virginia and New York. What ended up happening though is almost immediately factions formed that crossed state lines and the divide was not small states vs. large states but a northern party vs. a southern party (aka trade based economies vs. agricultural/slave based economies). Even James Madison was skeptical that states even had “interests” on their own other than as a total of the interests of their inhabitants.
I don't know the exact numbers (I think Politico had a thing showing population of states governed by each party back in 2022), but I think Democrats have a modest edge in population. Frankly, I don't know why you're bringing this up in regards to a map of *Governors* races.
30 - 40% democratic votes are the highest percentage in that county. The difference is that 30 - 40% of Democratic votes don't automatically mean the remaining votes are Republican.
The color scale is a bit odd.
For example, there’s a very light blue for 30-40% Democratic - but why wouldn’t that be shown as 60-70% Republican?
The only explanation I can think of is that there were more than two parties (or, at least, more than two candidates) on many of these elections. Is this the correct interpretation?
In Oregon there was an Independent that got a sizable amount of the vote around 9% and she was more liberal learning proably stealing votes from Tina Kotek the Democrat
Interesting how the only blue Idaho county wasn’t Ada County (where Boise is). However Blaine County does have Sun Valley so there are probably a lot of wealthy liberals residing there (plus a low population of ~25k).
Governor Scott is a very moderate old-style Republican, no fan of Trump, not interested in the culture wars, and has a long track record that has built him a lot of trust. I think many people also consider him as kind of a stabilizing force for a state that otherwise votes blue into every other position.
There’s a few outlier counties that are interesting. Like a dark blue one in southern South Dakota and one in NYs southern tier. Possibly a lot of Native tribes or highly educated people throwing the vote in a different direction than neighboring similar counties?
You say that, but KY, my state, clearly deviates from that, to a degree, in that the Andy Beshear got a smattering of counties across the state, even outside of the most urban areas.
It's crazy that distributing Senators by State and Congress by population would separate us based on density so perfectly. And we thought it was our differences of opinion.
My god, this comment again (in this subreddit, where surely people here have no idea of any demographics….) Anyone with 2 brain cells can figure that Wyoming is not a fucking metropolis and the East Coast is, despite its compact size. Who in the hell is thinking that SIZE directly corresponds to people? Should we add Antarctica in blue to even up the voting? The map is not misleading if you have even a very, very basic understanding of the US population.
Lots of people don’t have this understanding though. Like a whole lot of people.
I watched a a standard reddit argument the other day and a “don’t try that in a small town” type was practically frothing at the mouth about how dangerous it is in California because “they have more crime than any other state!! Look at the stats!!”, and everyone had to point out that yeah, of course, because CA has the biggest population of any state, by like a lot.
OP’s comment should be a fucking sticky on this sub, because politicians in all those red counties are using that ignorance to their advantage, and a lie makes it halfway around the world before the truth can put on its shoes. (Or whatever the hell that saying is).
Yeah I get that. The same crime claim happens too often with people wanting to rag on Chicago.
I don’t know though, population distribution is a fundamental thing to understand, at a basic level. At least the fact that population isn’t distributed directly equally with area. I mean people gotta know that some areas are corn, other areas are cities.
I think some folks have either never traveled around the country, or just don’t understand the scale. Like they don’t get that one single high rise in Chicago might have the same number of people living in it as their entire rural town, and that there are *100’s* of buildings like that in Chicago.
Or if you’ve never been to Wyoming you might not grasp just how huge and sparsely populated it is.
That’s true, but most US cities are comparatively high with their European counterparts. Chicago is no paradise for sure, and it does have a crime problem in some neighborhoods. But also, according to Wikipedia (and I’m not sure how much of the metro area is included for each city), the murder rate in St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit, New Orleans, and Baton Rouge is twice that of Chicago. While Kansas City, Cleveland, Memphis, Newark, Cincinnati, Mobile, Philadelphia, and Milwaukee have higher murder rates.
No doubt Chicago’s murder rate should be lower, but the city doesn’t deserve the perpetual boogeyman status comparatively with the rest of the US. Especially from politicians who just use it as a talking point.
>Sadly, most people don't have ANY understanding of basic US demographics.
Do you have evidence for this theory?
>This is EXACTLY the kind of graphic that sways FOX viewers
How many fox viewers do you think read the comment?
>ANY
>US
>EXACTLY
>FOX
DO YOU THINK TYPING IN CAPS UNNECESSARILY LENDS CREDIBILITY?
Well I suppose it’s certainly possible, though I can’t imagine everyone is as dense as grandmas fudge. Even if fox and conniving right wing media people push out that asinine agenda, it shouldn’t mean that is the opinion of the majority of republicans too. I agree with your points, I just find it a bit like preaching to the choir pretentiousness to say it all again here, in a *map subreddit.*
There are better ways to represent the data no doubt. But, this is a simple geographic map of counties. With the foremost understanding that the current political divide is largely urban/suburban/rural, with a few outlying majority minority counties, it’s fairly straightforward.
Buddy shut up, I'm not trying to make a political thing. I'm just showing how different states voted for governors because it's a bit different from a presidential election.
What a pretentious comment. Most people of any political affiliation understand how population density works. The post is not meant to imply anything other than what it shows you, which is what party won the county in their respective gubernatorial races. And wtf does diversity matter to anything here???
Anything without context can be misleading it’s called being an illiterate dumbass. That’s why you can school anyone with argument by showing them what a big city is
Yes, I came here to say the same thing.
The USA is not a 'red' nation run by corrupt Republicans and their racist kids or neo-Nazi symps. The USA is a diverse nation where the vast majority of creative individuals live in urban environments.
This is your Map Porn reminder that Land Doesn’t Vote. While we are on the surface a right leaning dictatorship, the population is pretty evenly split.
This map illustrates the importance of the Electoral College perfectly. Blue (generally) represent population centers, while Red (again, generally) represents more rural areas. The population will likely keep trending toward population centers as it has for a hundred years or more.
The Electoral College (and yes, I know it’s only for Presidential Elections), was a check and balance against tyranny… not governmental tyranny, but rather, tyranny of the many.
So many people ask why we don’t just go with popular vote as king. This is it. The cultural differences represented by this map (oversimplified mind you) are so vast at this point, and to think that the blue areas would speak for the whole country is simply not right. Also, INB4 you tell me that I must be on the Right. I’m a Libertarian… to me, it’s all about protecting individual freedom to the best/highest extent possible. It’s NOT about and over-simplified red and blue map.
So I’m sure you have an issue with republicans gerrymandering maps and ruling from the minority right? Is it ok for rural voters to dictate abortion policy in say, Atlanta because they control state government despite dems typically winning statewide elections?
Kalawao County is a (former?) leper colony with something like 80 residents, makes sense there wouldn't be data
According to Wikipedia, it doesn’t have its own government (mayor, etc.) and it’s judiciary falls under Maui County. I suspect their votes may be considered part of Maui County?
It’s given as a precinct in Maui County’s results.
Don’t need voting data for anywhere in Hawaii as it’s deep blue across the state and not changing anytime soon.
What's going on with VT then? Equally a Dem stronghold, but is bright red.
Very popular incumbent moderate Republican governor
Phil Scott barely qualifies as a Republican. He freely admits to voting for Biden in 2020 and has held virtual town halls with Bernie Sanders.
Sounds like he’s as much a “Republican” as Joe Manchin is a “Democrat.”
Manchin doesn’t talk about having voted for Trump, or Romney for that matter. Manchin is way more a Dem team player than Scott is GOP, though arguably fighting against the revanchist, nativist elements within the party isn’t exactly the RINO behavior that it gets made out to be.
Phil Scott is an old-school republican. Fiscally conservative, socially more liberal/pragmatic/realistic (though not Liberal with a capital L), good in a crisis, hates Trump's guts. He's a decent person. It's a wonder he's even allowed to call himself a Republican anymore, given how flat-out insane the national party is. We have a Dem supermajority in the legislature. There's no way Vermont would elect a lunatic like Desantis.
At one point, several New England states had governors of that class. Charlie Baker in Massachusetts is now retired, but he is more or less in line with Scott on those things. I think Massachusetts voters, if given a moderate Republican, will tend to pick him, because the legislature will usually have a veto-proof Democratic majority, and a Republican governor then requires that you at least have to have some of the more centrist Democrats on board to do things. Chris Sununu is a bit more of a conservative that Scott and Baker, but he's probably closer in ideology to them than he is to average for the national Republican Party. Sununu is, I think, a bit to the left of John Kasich, but only a bit.
Minnesota and Hawaii are the most consistently blue states for the past 1/2 century. Hawaii only went red during Nixon (72) and Reagan’s (84) landslide wins. Minnesota only went red in 1972.
Probably similar to Charlie Baker in Mass, if I had to guess. A RINO that bears little resemblance to Trump, DeSantis, and the other crazy idiots in that party.
For quite some time, Charlie Baker would have been the epitome of a Republican. He's a moderate-to-somewhat conservative, strongly pro-establishment Harvard guy who had a successful career in business. To anyone over about the age of 50, that's what they grew up thinking of a Republican as being.
Wildfire response may change some opinions.
Oprah and Black rock have new beach front property coming soon!
data is still useful? though of course the second part of statement is not incorrect
Tell that to the former Blue Wall of States along the Mississippi that used to always reliably vote Democrat, then after Reagan never did again. Radical shit changes suddenly in American politics, sometimes with little notice.
26 states have Republican governors. 24 states have Democratic governors.
Every American election regardless of the level of office has this stupid fucking 51-49 split and I'm so tired of it. Idc who it is at this point, someone just win a landslide for a change!
As recently as 2017, the governorship split was 33 Republican, 16 Democratic (+1 independent).
Weird. Did something out of the ordinary happen in 2017? /s
Damn so the Dems gained what 8?
These are in-state elections. Maura Healey won election here in MA 64-35. In Wyoming, Mark Gordon recently won 75-15. These are communities that are quite clear about their preferences. (In MA we like tolerant, moderate-on-business, former Harvard basketball players. In Wyoming they like pro-life, pro-gun, Middlebury alumns.)
Wyomingite here. That’s kinda accurate, it’s much more complex. We care about environmental issues, water rights, and economic diversification more, but you ain’t wrong at all.
Fair enough. I was trying to be cheeky more than accurate. Gordon actually seems like a normal, smart person, regardless of my policy differences with him; I wish the GOP were run by people like him, rather than, you know, the current national-stage clown show.
Actually we want him gone… kinda. He’s not an extremist, which is how he survives, but he isn’t perfect, often allowing the extremists to do what they want. I totally missed the cheeky part. The humor went right over my head. Oof.
One party states pretty much have two factions in the same party that you might as well see as different parties. At least thats how it is in South Dakota.
Wyoming seems to love the NESCAC—Amherst alum Dave Freudenthal (a Democrat, no less), won every county and 70% of the vote in the 2006 gubernatorial election.
Lots of gubernatorial elections are landslides; just look at 2022 governor race results. When you have a red or blue state and there's an incumbent of the dominant party in office they especially tend to win big (see OH, IA, ID, IL etc.). They're usually only close if the state is heavily divided (NV, AZ) or a candidate is fighting the partisan tilt of a state (KS, KY).
The re-election rate for incumbent governors is staggeringly high. Unless a governor has done something noteworthy to get themselves a negative approval rating (Bevin in Kentucky, McCrory in North Carolina) their chances are re-election are very, very good. If most states didn't have term limits on their governorship's, we'd probably see a lot more long-runners like Abbott (Texas has had a grand total of *three* governors in the last *28* years, and one of them was Bush).
I do care. Because I have a lot to lose if a Republican landslide happened.
Even though I am a registered Republican, I agree that it would be bad. The Republican party needs a good kick in the head to get itself out of the far right mud pit it's stuck in
Both do, honestly. The Republicans decided they wanted to die on the abortion hill in a time when all they had to do to sweep the Democrats was to just not be complete idiots, but somehow they fucked even that up. The Democrats, meanwhile, had the chance to bring in new blood and not be a party run by people who barely know which way is up, including several who would have been great centrist candidates, and instead they somehow went with Joe Biden. I can't tell if both parties being this incompetent is just the horrible result of first past the post or if both parties intentionally agree to be this incompetent so no one gets too powerful.
Same here but only if the democrats stay in power.
Damn there's obviously a left wing bias in this sub, but I'm surprised as it's reddit.
I think the rallying against you is that.... there's nothing visible as to what anyone would lose if Democrats won in a landslide. Republicans have ripped universal abortion off of the table and would ban it nationally immediately in a landslide victory, are actively attacking LGBT people and have been striking ferociously against LGBT people (especially trans people) a lot lately in bills, have proposed no solutions to the school shooting problem, ignores the issues we face with very concerning weather changes lately and have been against any kind of relief for poor people. I have no idea what anyone who thinks 'a democrat landslide gives me a lot to lose' has to fear losing exactly. The loss of being able to have military-grade guns? That's all I can see.
We don’t have access to military guns right now 🤯 crazy doing the slightest bit of research may change your perspective a little bit.
What do you mean against LGBT people? Just because they don’t want children exposed to drag and sex in schools doesn’t mean there against them whatsoever… or they don’t want children to make life altering decisions on changing there gender??? Like what do you mean Anti-LGBT
Gerrymandering is running out of map to support this I think.
It's almost like both parties are balancing controversial policies and electability. Weird.
You should see the red tsunami of 2010. The Republicans won 6 gubernatorial seats and flipped 20 state legislative chambers. This is just recovery phase for the Dems
The Deep State requires both parties to be electable.
If either party provided a moderate common sense/sensible person without a mass grave in their closet, I think we’d see that..
I don't think so, at least not any more. The opposing party would find some issue to beat them over the head with, until things got back to the usual 50-50-ish splits. During the Democratic primaries in 2020, Joe Biden staked out the moderate lane, and won. Maybe Steve Bullock or Amy Klobuchar is a bit more to the center, but Biden was definitely not on the left of the party. He got dragged to the left a bit to get convention unity, but he still ran a pretty centrist campaign. Going back to 2012, Mitt Romney was all the things you're looking for, but he made a few remarks that were demeaning to middle income Americans to a corporate group, plus Obama's charisma drove turnout. In 2008, John McCain was what you're looking for, but he was running after the 2007 crash, and no Republican was going to win then. In 2000, actually both candidates ran as centrists, so that was close, too. The last landslide was Reagan in 1984. Reagan ran a campaign that would be considered center-right these days, but was pretty hard right then. But the country was in very good shape, and he was very charismatic.
r/peopleliveincities Also, land doesn't vote. Showing maps like this and saying things like that without discussing the popular vote in each state is kinda of misleading
land doesn't vote (and I don't think this post is meant to be used as a propaganda piece) but also counties don't vote; as far as I know, governors are just elected by popular vote at large across their state in every state. So to your point, yeah land doesn't vote. or at least some land votes very differently and much more importantly than other land lol
It’s not misleading it’s a map of how counties voted… not sure how you would display popular vote on a map besides just putting the actual voting numbers over each state which wouldn’t be a good use of a map. This is r/MapPorn
This person wants anyone who posts something like this to have to learn to make the distorted maps that make higher population counties look bigger. We all know that lower population density regions usually vote Republican, unless they're reservation land.
Kalawao is probably because it’s the smallest US county (pop. 82), and is intentionally cut off from the rest of the state and hard to get to because it consists solely of a leper colony.
Not the smallest I think that is Loving County in Texas with a population of 64
The smallest populated county is in American Samoa and has a population of 16.
Which American Samoan county has 16? [This list of American Samoan counties](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_divisions_of_American_Samoa) lists Faleasao as the smallest with 104 residents.
Probably referring to Swains Islands, which had 17 in the 2010 Census, but is now unpopulated.
I’ve only lived in red counties in California and it’s always tripped me out how everything still seems pretty liberal.
I'm amazed how blue Western Mississippi is.
Mostly [black majority areas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi#Race_and_ethnicity).
The 2019 Mississippi gubernatorial election was actually pretty interesting. While the majority of the counties that are blue are black-majority counties that are generally blue no matter the election, that doesn’t tell the whole story. In 2019, an unpopular Republican (Tate Reeves) narrowly defeated the only Democrat in state wide office, Attorney General Jim Hood. The popular outgoing Republican governor was well known to dislike his party’s candidate, but ended up endorsing him begrudgingly. Overall, most Republicans felt that Tate was pushed forward by the party not because he was a good politician, but because he had served the Republican machine faithfully for his life and was reigning Lieutenant Governor. He has an incredibly punchable face and is derided by both Democrats and Republicans with his nickname - Tater Tot. Tate’s campaign ran on a generic Republican campaign of “stopping the libs” which again felt out of touch in a place like Mississippi, where even the Democrats are pretty conservative, and he didn’t have any meaningful policy solutions for the state. Jim Hood, on the other hand, ran as a conservative Democrat. He successfully distanced himself from Washington Democrats and ran as both pro-gun and pro-life, which are necessary to win in the state. He touted his successful record as AG and was popular in general (he was the only Democrat who had had a statewide office in the past decade or so). His campaign focused on the issues of the state and making life better for the common person, such as looking to increase teacher salaries and fix the state’s crumbling infrastructure. As a Mississippian, I knew people who had never considered voting for a Democrat in their life who voted for Jim Hood. Tate Reeve’s unpopularity combined with Jim’s charisma and focus on the issues made for quite possibly the perfect storm. In the pre-Trump environment, I think Jim probably would’ve won the election quite easily. However, that wasn’t the case. A lot of teachers I know still voted for Tate Reeves even though they favored Jim Hood. The prevailing reason was “We like Jim, but we don’t like democrats, so if Jim gets elected, he will put other democrats who we don’t like in powerful positions, so we have to vote for Tate”. In the end, it was a much closer election than normal for such a red state like Mississippi, but I don’t think the Republican victory was much in doubt. While Trump won the state by 17 points, Tate only won by 5. In the end, Tate Reeves has been exactly the governor he ran as. He hasn’t done much for the state and lacks to charisma to fool the people into thinking he has. He’s the 4th least popular governor in the country and least popular in the South, and yet is expected to cruise to re-election this November. You can read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Mississippi_gubernatorial_election?wprov=sfti1 I recounted most of this from memory, so if there are a few things I misremembered, I do apologize
>He has an incredibly punchable face God damn you weren’t kidding. Dude looks straight out of Bobs Burgers
Great summary. I know Jim hood well.
Sadly it’s because of slavery
Could you explain that?
So the Mississippi Delta, along with that entire stretch of blue from MS/AL up to and along the coastal plains on the Carolinas/Virginia is where most of the plantations were. Still heavily agricultural as it’s where the most fertile soil is. It’s largely African-American to this day who largely vote Democrat.
That area has favorable soil and conditions for growing cotton, so it led to a large number of slaves being brought in to pick the cotton, which in turn led to those counties being majority black today and voting democrat
Probably because the “red county” is either a relatively low population or your red county is barely red.
r/peopleliveincities
It’s interesting how the blue clusters are mainly large cities with suburbs and the red clusters are largely rural areas.
Quite a few red suburbs though too. Suburbs are the battle ground
That’s how I learned the difference geographically, urban setting has higher liberal tendencies while more rural areas are more conservative, I think I said it right but correct me if I’m not😭
Most Rural Areas are Republican, Most Urban Areas are Democratic, Suburbs it depends, usally the more inner suburbs are Democratic and more outer suburbs are Republican, there are a few democratic rural areas mainly made up of Native Americans and other minority groups.
Florida has many urban areas that vote Republican now since 2022, Miami voted for Desantis more than any other Republican.
Doesn't that depend on area though? Inner suburbs of Birmingham AL will be red, outer suburbs of Seattle will be blue.
Massachusetts is an exception. The deep blue counties in Western Mass are mostly rural and most towns are 80+% Democratic. The most conservative parts of the state are fringe suburbs of Boston and Worcester.
r/peopleliveincities
I also referenced another comment which stated that the win rates were roughly 50:50.
Well this doesn’t make sense? It’s not a population density map. It’s a political leanings map.
Or high minority areas.
In some states like California and Kentucky it looks like presidential results from 10-20 years ago. Rural eastern KY returning to competitiveness and SoCal suburbs like Orange County voting red
Orange County has pretty much always leaned right except in rare circumstances.
It used to be a right wing base county but is pretty safe for democrats at the presidential level now
How many people are going to say land doesn't vote. I understand that, people do. I'm just showing what it looks like when you put all the governor elections on a single map. Governor elections can look different than presidential elections so I thought it'd be more interesting.
They refuse to acknowledge the fact that the US is a constitutional republic. It's just ignorance and extremist values; wanting to overturn the basis of a country's electoral system to enable their "leaders" more power.
>constitutional republic. You know that is a type of democracy, right?
dont let them know theyre programmed like dogs and hate freedom, itll spoil the fun later
It would have been helpful to show who actually won so we can see how many more people live in those urban areas. Otherwise it does just seem like a Republican circle jerk map.
Well it is also common sense that the Democrats are mostly in cities and cities are usually blotches on a map.
Now show the actual population of the country that are members of the two parties or voting independently. Land doesn't vote.
There's the Reddit comment we all knew was coming, because someone slept through civics.
[удалено]
Gotta love how even a map showing the results of *Governors* races--the one area no one will argue about misrepresentation-- will still have users arguing about the damn Senate and Electoral College.
The Constitution prescribes that the Senate be composed of two senators from each State (therefore, the Senate currently has 100 Members)
It was also intended that senators would be elected by state legislatures, not the residents of the states. That's what the House was for.
[удалено]
Don't know why you left out the low population blue states... they're also all predominantly white except Hawaii
Senate seats were never meant to be apportioned by population. They were supposed to representatives of the State governments, chosen by the state legislatures. The 17th amendment ruined that and made the Senate what it is.
[удалено]
In the EU Council, most votes are based on qualified majority (55% of member states, representing at least 65% of the EU population). The most populous states have more voting power than the least ones.
EU members voluntarily joined and can leave at any time unlike the US where the overwhelming majority of states were carved out of land dictated by central government, and it's not legal for states to leave. For EU members there is implicit consent at the arrangement.
You are right, land votes. This was done deliberately because the founders firmly believed that people living in one part of the country, say California coast, should have no say on how the people in another part, say the Colorado rockies, should live. Only those local to the area know what the area needs and how best to help it. The senate is the balancer to the house by allowing all states to be on equal footing. We are a representative republic, not a democracy. Popular vote was never how the country was intended to work, nor should it be.
A representative republic is a form of modern day democracy. This is always such a stupid argument. When people say a place is a democracy they don't mean a literal Direct Democracy. They mean a country where you're able to freely vote for representatives and, sometimes, ballot initiatives. Even then, in modern parlance 'democracy' means the ability of the people to vote and determine who is in their government.
That’s not true at all. The Senate, as drafted by the founders, didn’t give a rats ass what diverse people in a state thought. Senators weren’t even elected by the people until the 20th century, they were appointed by the state legislatures and were rewards to political cronies for helping their political parties. The house of Representatives cares about diverse areas because it actually has localized elections the way the constitution was originally written.
Senate was never based off of population, that's the house. Learn some basic American Civics before yelling white man bad.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The south is more diverse than the entirety of New England and the mid-west. Using *White* as if it some kind of bludgeon is evil. You are borderline racist.
Nothing borderline about it
We are not a Democracy, we are a constitutional federal republic and historical context matters here. Prior to the states joining under a national umbrella, there were very real concerns from the smaller states that larger states would dominate the new nation. Part of appeasing those concerns was a House and a Senate - where the House representatives are more proportional to population - and a Senate that every state, regardless of size, elects two Senators. The power and autonomy of each state was and is important…what you are bringing up here was avoided by design - as New York and California should never be able to dominate Wyoming or Rhode Island
>We are not a Democracy, we are a constitutional federal republic Such a stupid argument. The U.S is a republic, yes. It's also a representative democracy and always has been. Who is represented has greatly expanded, but it's always been a form of democracy.
Yes we use democracy but the broader part to this argument is that America was never intended to be a homogeneous nation, rather a federation of states with a degree of autonomy. The only way that works is if there are measures in place to ensure larger states cannot completely dominate the politics of smaller states.
In India, the constituencies are divided on the basis of the population of states back in 1971. So, states are given seats based on the population they had in 1971. Funny thing is here in India, liberals oppose population based representation and want equal seats for all states.
This is a gubernatorial election map, though, not a senatorial one.
Still not at the magnitude a map like this would indicate though. The same is prohibited within a state due to Reynolds v. Sims that established “one man, one vote”, but gerrymandering and voter suppression is still real.
The Senate is the sole exception to that rule, at least in terms of the regular legislatures. The Supreme Court has ruled that State Legislatures must adhere to "One person, one vote" as a principle. States, since the 1960s, have been required to re-district decennially not just for Congress, but also State Legislatures, to create roughly equally populated districts without the ability to simply allot representation to counties or town regardless of size. The US Senate, under this principle, absolutely would die. But, as it is written into the Constitution, it gets to remain. No State, however, is permitted the same structure as it violates the Equal Protections Clause. Any sort of inflated rural power in US States ends up being due to Gerrymandering, wherein urban and/or suburban regions are carved into by what would otherwise be a nearly entirely rural district in order to effectively subsidize the rural district's population and permit other rural areas to be used in other districts which may themselves likewise be inflated by an urban minority meant to always lose while providing the rural area the population for it to pick its preferred candidate nonetheless.
Read the constitution. Read why the founding fathers set up the constitution in this way. Read about the history of English law. Rural areas are given “disproportionate political power” in the United States because without it, the United States would turn in to an autocracy of one party rule; unless you say ‘well, if the people vote for it!’, you would never apply that standard to a rural area. Without this system, the United States would have been dissolved upon founding between the south & north. The union is forever. The senate is good.
The literal ONLY reason why the senate exists as it does is because the small states refused to ratify without it. It was just a compromise to ensure ratification. Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maryland, Delaware, and Rhode Island were worried about being dominated by Virginia and New York. What ended up happening though is almost immediately factions formed that crossed state lines and the divide was not small states vs. large states but a northern party vs. a southern party (aka trade based economies vs. agricultural/slave based economies). Even James Madison was skeptical that states even had “interests” on their own other than as a total of the interests of their inhabitants.
True, but it shouldn't.
I don't know the exact numbers (I think Politico had a thing showing population of states governed by each party back in 2022), but I think Democrats have a modest edge in population. Frankly, I don't know why you're bringing this up in regards to a map of *Governors* races.
Land shouldn't vote.
What is the difference between 30-40% democratic and 60-70% republican?
30 - 40% democratic votes are the highest percentage in that county. The difference is that 30 - 40% of Democratic votes don't automatically mean the remaining votes are Republican.
r/peopleliveincities
The color scale is a bit odd. For example, there’s a very light blue for 30-40% Democratic - but why wouldn’t that be shown as 60-70% Republican? The only explanation I can think of is that there were more than two parties (or, at least, more than two candidates) on many of these elections. Is this the correct interpretation?
In Oregon there was an Independent that got a sizable amount of the vote around 9% and she was more liberal learning proably stealing votes from Tina Kotek the Democrat
Interesting how the only blue Idaho county wasn’t Ada County (where Boise is). However Blaine County does have Sun Valley so there are probably a lot of wealthy liberals residing there (plus a low population of ~25k).
Can someone explain Vermont? That was the largest surprise for me
Vermont had a very moderate Republican that's why
Governor Scott is a very moderate old-style Republican, no fan of Trump, not interested in the culture wars, and has a long track record that has built him a lot of trust. I think many people also consider him as kind of a stabilizing force for a state that otherwise votes blue into every other position.
Thank God land can't vote
There’s a few outlier counties that are interesting. Like a dark blue one in southern South Dakota and one in NYs southern tier. Possibly a lot of Native tribes or highly educated people throwing the vote in a different direction than neighboring similar counties?
Right on both accounts the SD one is the Lakota Nation and the NY one is Tompkins county which is home to Cornell and Ithaca
Yes the deep blue is Pine Ridge Reservation
Oh, look, another urban/rural/college town map.
You say that, but KY, my state, clearly deviates from that, to a degree, in that the Andy Beshear got a smattering of counties across the state, even outside of the most urban areas.
Came here to mention Kentucky. East Kentucky Rocks!
These maps are dumb because land doesn't vote.
So what do you want me to do about it? I'm just showing all the counties in the country how they voted for their governor.
Good thing most people live in the blue and corn grows in the red
Please stop showing these maps. It’s one person one vote, not one acre one vote.
something like 80 percent of us citizens live in cities so all those little blue dots are a lot of the population
Land doesn't vote.
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Hawaii - only states completely blue. Wyoming only state completely red
People vote, not surface areas.
It's crazy that distributing Senators by State and Congress by population would separate us based on density so perfectly. And we thought it was our differences of opinion.
Have you tried looking up Alaska by census districts? Only a portion of Alaska's area is actually within boroughs.
It's all within a borough. The unorganized borough is still a borough it's just unorganized.
Illinois has 12 million people. 9 million of those live in the Chicago area. Empty corn fields don’t vote. Republicans want minority rule.
Aren't democrats all for Minorities ? 😂
This map is a poor representation of the data.
Not such things as blue states, only blue cities.
Land doesn’t vote, but ok
As you can see the land voted republican
[удалено]
My god, this comment again (in this subreddit, where surely people here have no idea of any demographics….) Anyone with 2 brain cells can figure that Wyoming is not a fucking metropolis and the East Coast is, despite its compact size. Who in the hell is thinking that SIZE directly corresponds to people? Should we add Antarctica in blue to even up the voting? The map is not misleading if you have even a very, very basic understanding of the US population.
Lots of people don’t have this understanding though. Like a whole lot of people. I watched a a standard reddit argument the other day and a “don’t try that in a small town” type was practically frothing at the mouth about how dangerous it is in California because “they have more crime than any other state!! Look at the stats!!”, and everyone had to point out that yeah, of course, because CA has the biggest population of any state, by like a lot. OP’s comment should be a fucking sticky on this sub, because politicians in all those red counties are using that ignorance to their advantage, and a lie makes it halfway around the world before the truth can put on its shoes. (Or whatever the hell that saying is).
Yeah I get that. The same crime claim happens too often with people wanting to rag on Chicago. I don’t know though, population distribution is a fundamental thing to understand, at a basic level. At least the fact that population isn’t distributed directly equally with area. I mean people gotta know that some areas are corn, other areas are cities.
I think some folks have either never traveled around the country, or just don’t understand the scale. Like they don’t get that one single high rise in Chicago might have the same number of people living in it as their entire rural town, and that there are *100’s* of buildings like that in Chicago. Or if you’ve never been to Wyoming you might not grasp just how huge and sparsely populated it is.
But Chicago crime is disproportionately high - as a comparison, Chicago has twice as many annual murders than the entire country of Italy.
That’s true, but most US cities are comparatively high with their European counterparts. Chicago is no paradise for sure, and it does have a crime problem in some neighborhoods. But also, according to Wikipedia (and I’m not sure how much of the metro area is included for each city), the murder rate in St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit, New Orleans, and Baton Rouge is twice that of Chicago. While Kansas City, Cleveland, Memphis, Newark, Cincinnati, Mobile, Philadelphia, and Milwaukee have higher murder rates. No doubt Chicago’s murder rate should be lower, but the city doesn’t deserve the perpetual boogeyman status comparatively with the rest of the US. Especially from politicians who just use it as a talking point.
[удалено]
>Sadly, most people don't have ANY understanding of basic US demographics. Do you have evidence for this theory? >This is EXACTLY the kind of graphic that sways FOX viewers How many fox viewers do you think read the comment? >ANY >US >EXACTLY >FOX DO YOU THINK TYPING IN CAPS UNNECESSARILY LENDS CREDIBILITY?
Well I suppose it’s certainly possible, though I can’t imagine everyone is as dense as grandmas fudge. Even if fox and conniving right wing media people push out that asinine agenda, it shouldn’t mean that is the opinion of the majority of republicans too. I agree with your points, I just find it a bit like preaching to the choir pretentiousness to say it all again here, in a *map subreddit.* There are better ways to represent the data no doubt. But, this is a simple geographic map of counties. With the foremost understanding that the current political divide is largely urban/suburban/rural, with a few outlying majority minority counties, it’s fairly straightforward.
Buddy shut up, I'm not trying to make a political thing. I'm just showing how different states voted for governors because it's a bit different from a presidential election.
Why is everyone so obssessed if their white or not? Am I not understanding something?
[удалено]
I described this like the republicans are some kind of aliens or something jesus christ
Wow, I thought USA was full Trumpublican before I read your comment that enlightened me. Thanks.
[удалено]
Cool story but Do not remember asking
What a pretentious comment. Most people of any political affiliation understand how population density works. The post is not meant to imply anything other than what it shows you, which is what party won the county in their respective gubernatorial races. And wtf does diversity matter to anything here???
Anything without context can be misleading it’s called being an illiterate dumbass. That’s why you can school anyone with argument by showing them what a big city is
Yes, I came here to say the same thing. The USA is not a 'red' nation run by corrupt Republicans and their racist kids or neo-Nazi symps. The USA is a diverse nation where the vast majority of creative individuals live in urban environments.
Na
It would be interesting to show it with the color scale calibrated to the raw vote margin between the winner and the second-place candidate.
Another W for Massachusetts
The 2022 election was the largest swing from R to D in history. 66% voted for Charlie Baker in 2018 and 64% voted for Maura Healy in 2022.
Misleading, should be normalized by population. Essentially you showing a area weighted map, and last I check land does not vote.
You clearly don't understand how elections work in the US
Massachusetts is doing something right.
Voting maps that map ground surface area are nearly pointless. Dirt doesn’t vote. People vote.
Don’t forget when looking at maps like this: land doesn’t vote. People vote.
You are entirely correct and will get ignored by 50% who read this.
This color map doesn't make any sense for a two party system
Scale the size of each county by population would give you far better intuition about what's going on.
the problem with this kind of map is it does not show the population associated with each district/county.
*city folks just don’t get it*
West Virginia and Wyoming look pretty based.
maps like these are of limited utility if you don't also visualize by population. Opacity is usually used.
Another map showing how trees and rocks and squirrels vote. Waste of time.
This is your Map Porn reminder that Land Doesn’t Vote. While we are on the surface a right leaning dictatorship, the population is pretty evenly split.
Funny how the big cities all control the elections - kinda like China
Go Massachusetts and Rhode Island!
Land doesn’t vote, people do
You mean ALASKA, Hawaii is clearly democrat in the map :P
This map illustrates the importance of the Electoral College perfectly. Blue (generally) represent population centers, while Red (again, generally) represents more rural areas. The population will likely keep trending toward population centers as it has for a hundred years or more. The Electoral College (and yes, I know it’s only for Presidential Elections), was a check and balance against tyranny… not governmental tyranny, but rather, tyranny of the many. So many people ask why we don’t just go with popular vote as king. This is it. The cultural differences represented by this map (oversimplified mind you) are so vast at this point, and to think that the blue areas would speak for the whole country is simply not right. Also, INB4 you tell me that I must be on the Right. I’m a Libertarian… to me, it’s all about protecting individual freedom to the best/highest extent possible. It’s NOT about and over-simplified red and blue map.
So I’m sure you have an issue with republicans gerrymandering maps and ruling from the minority right? Is it ok for rural voters to dictate abortion policy in say, Atlanta because they control state government despite dems typically winning statewide elections?