this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2024
66 points (93.4% liked)

Map Enthusiasts

3486 readers
69 users here now

For the map enthused!

Rules:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 37 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Land doesn’t vote.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It has been enacted into law by 17 states and DC with 209 electoral votes. It needs an additional 61 electoral votes to go into effect.

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com

[–] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yeah but the people who own land matter more. The 17 that passed this are probably not the 100% red states here so this is gonna go nowhere

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

It won’t matter if those who enacted total more than 50% of the electoral votes.

As of April 15, 2024, the National Popular Vote bill has been enacted into law in 18 jurisdictions possessing 209 electoral votes, including

6 small jurisdictions (District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont), 9 medium-sized states (Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington), and 3 big states (California, Illinois, New York)

[–] Rolder@reddthat.com 1 points 5 months ago

I wonder which states would be the most reasonable choices to get the extra 61

[–] lars@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

After the last 25 years of American presidential elections, I’m more convinced than ever that I cannot trust a minority or a majority of them to make the right choices.

Tangentially and rhetorically, I wish Trump were president right now so that non-right-wing Americans could be convinced that genocide’s not a good look.

[–] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If the candidates were Trump and Mecha-Hitler the libs would feverishly support Trump for his "moderate stances"

[–] lars@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 5 months ago

Agreed. And just like we can now realize Bush Jr. was not the worst president ever, we will one day see that Trump wasn’t either.

I imagine there are few workarounds for voters in first-past-the-post nations.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

As of January, 63% of Democrats think Israel has gone too far vs. 33% of Republicans.

24% of Republicans think Israel hasn’t gone far enough vs. 9% of Democrats.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-poll-biden-war-gaza-4159b28d313c6c37abdb7f14162bcdd1

Also, Palestine isn’t the only concern regarding genocide and US support.

Russia is committing genocide in Ukraine. They’ve abducted over 700,000 Ukrainian children to be raised as Russians since the beginning of the war.

If Trump takes office in November, Ukraine will lose all US support.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/moscow-says-700000-children-ukraine-conflict-zones-now-russia-2023-07-03/

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 19 points 5 months ago (3 children)

The parties switched up during the Civil Rights Movement. Why does the map include both before and after that time?

[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

The Civil Rights movement is what caused Republicans to move towards business and away from helpful social policies. The Democrats saw the shift as lots of their own rank fled to join the Goldwater Rs and pivoted to grab the underrepresented folks. This broadly created the current business focused Republican Party and the social focused Democrats.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 3 points 5 months ago

The business part is not true. Hoover was a Republican President who loved big businesses. FDR was a Democratic President who enacted many policies to help poor people.

[–] stankmut@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The republican party has been pro big business since the late 1800s. As the other person has mentioned, you can see the parties' modern economic stances by the 1930s. The Civil Rights movement just shifted them to the Business and Racism party.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 5 months ago

Yeah, from what I can tell, pre-Nixon Republicans were basically libertarians, and pre-Nixon Democrats were basically whatever the opposite of that is, although they were both moderate to near-indistinguishability at times.

[–] Didros@beehaw.org 0 points 5 months ago

I think you are thinking of the whigg party and the democrats. That was long before the Civil Rights Movement. The big shift during the time was black voters switching to democrats because of republican speeches against the Civil Rights Act. https://www.studentsofhistory.com/ideologies-flip-Democratic-Republican-parties

[–] Maalus@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago

Switched as in the spiderman meme. America doesn't have a left and right party, you have two rightwing ones.

[–] takeheart@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I feel like when comparing over a such a vast time scale party affiliation becomes less useful as a metric.

Society and mores have changed so much over the last 80+ years that it's better to ask about specific questions or habits like: Do you support a smoking ban in public spaces? or Schools should provide free meals to students: yes/no and see how the answers develop over time.

[–] lars@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Similarly erratically, Nate Silver of 538 fame was pretty sure American Democrats would be more hesitant to wearing masks during a pandemic than Republicans would be because Democrats were known for more of a my-body-my-choice philosophy.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I read his personal blog a bit recently, and I was surprised by how much he talks about the "woke left". If I ever met him, I'd want his take on all the statistics that, to me, make that group out to be mostly a straw man.

[–] PyroNeurosis@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 5 months ago

Keep in mind not all states were states at the conclusion of the war. Only Alaska and Hawai'i, but still, they lost a few years.