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. [ETA: Nearly] 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.
Edit: added strikethrough to my last statement because now I have confirmed it.
Of the 50 states, all but two award all of their presidential electors to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote in the state (Maine and Nebraska each award two of their electors to the candidate who wins a plurality of the statewide vote; the remaining electors are allocated to the winners of the plurality vote in the states’ congressional districts). (source)
I mean, this just says “I didn’t research things and you shouldn’t take what I say seriously” to me.
I don’t like this perspective … you’re effectively punishing honesty about uncertainty which is almost certainly why so many politician themselves pretend to have super powers, perfect foresight, control, and what not.
Like, can we just have a discussion accepting that op acknowledge they don’t know everything? … because nobody knows everything.
I see your point. There was just something about the wording that really made it feel unfinished/unverified to me and led me down the path of thought I went on. Of course, very few people in the world know everything on a given topic and no one is infallible. I guess it was just the phrasing that really made me suspicious.
It means I didn’t go look at the laws of 50 different states, correct. Doesn’t mean I didn’t do any research at all; I did confirm for multiple states where I heard people saying this (OH, NC, and TX) and I confirmed that only those two states allocate votes based on districts while all others allocate all voters to one candidate. Maybe there’s some other method out there other than district-driven or popular vote–driven; I’m holding space that I could be unaware of something rather than trying to claim I know everything.
I took it to mean “I don’t know if this is actually true or not, but I’m going to post it anyway” which is exactly where tons of quickly-spreading misinformation comes from and how it gets passed on.
Specifically, the claim that it’s the popular vote overall seems off to me, though I don’t currently have time to look into it (I did some quick googling but did not get a conclusive answer). What I mean to say is that, yes, all of the electoral votes are allocated to whomever is considered a winner and it is not proportional (except in two states). I was under the impression, however, that it went by districts so whomever won the most districts got the full share of votes (i.e. not the overall statewide popular vote).
followed by:
Seriously?
I had to start work and I was talking about actual post rather than comments, but I suppose that’s a fair criticism. I did mean it to mean that I was coming back to it (as I am now).
And what you’re saying now is, “What you said doesn’t align to what I think, so I’m sure you’re wrong.”
So here’s proof:
I had to start work so sorry for the delayed response. No, I didn’t assert that you were wrong. I did say the wording left a lot of room to be suspicious.
I appreciate the source above and, indeed, it looks like I was wrong on that specific part (at least according to three other source, including ballotpedia).
Edit for clarity: my reasoning was not “you are wrong because I don’t agree” but rather the wording itself just gave me an off feeling (even had I agreed with it fully).
Thanks for the clarification on your intent. I understand (and appreciate) skepticism; however, I took your original comment to be a dig rather than helpful criticism, but your clarification here helps me read it more positively.
Someone else commented and used words that aligned with my intent behind the comment, which was just to leave open the door that there are nuances I may be uninformed about. But I recognize I could have been more explicit about what research I had done to maybe establish a little more credibility.
Thanks for responding with such a level head!
Yeah, I actually felt bad last night about my wording choice and explanation, so apologies for that. Thank you as well for engaging. Cheers!
I dunno, you haven’t even pointed anything out yet.
Generally, the person stating a claim is the one that needs to substantiate that claim. If someone makes a post and then says in their own post “I’m probably not right but I can’t be bothered to check yet am still going to post anyway”, that strikes me as lazy at best and vain or shady at worst.
I think you’re getting downvotes because you’re projecting a narrative onto @Reyali and using quotes around non-quotes. They didn’t say they were “probably not right.”
I agree, everyone should be skeptical of information someone else is sharing, because we can’t assume intention. But what would motivate someone to say “I’m probably not right” anyway?
What’s interesting to me is that for you, your guard went up for someone admitting a potential of having missed something, which may make you more susceptible to people who are confidently wrong.
Most others’ reaction is the opposite, taking their statement as an attempt to be genuine and open to feedback. If someone invites feedback, is willing to admit they might be wrong, that’s a much better starting point for conversation.