Hey love, calm down. I was referring to gerrymandering and vote suppression not the inability to vote for the lesser evil.
I did vote and in fact a surprising number of my peers voted blue despite the fact they typically hard line republican. It made no difference because our state is an all or nothing state, so as long as you can gerrymander well enough around cities and convince rural areas to vote red out of fear, ta da the red party gets all the marbles as if the entire state voted unanimously.
For the 273645234th time, gerrymandering does not play a part in a presidential election. Voter suppression, sure. Gerrymandering affects congressional elections.
Agreeing with the main statement here, but there are knock on effects to gerrymandering. Higher races get fewer votes from places where the elections aren’t competitive. With few competitive races there’s less benefit to voting, so marginal voters stay home. That’s why a motivating ballot question is considered a political benefit.
And gerrymandered states can also give the impression that state level results are a foregone conclusion as well. With the electoral college, where the number of votes on the losing side don’t matter, living under a red trifecta creates an impression that the state itself will never flip.
Hey love, calm down. I was referring to gerrymandering and vote suppression not the inability to vote for the lesser evil.
I did vote and in fact a surprising number of my peers voted blue despite the fact they typically hard line republican. It made no difference because our state is an all or nothing state, so as long as you can gerrymander well enough around cities and convince rural areas to vote red out of fear, ta da the red party gets all the marbles as if the entire state voted unanimously.
That’s what I meant by not having democracy.
For the 273645234th time, gerrymandering does not play a part in a presidential election. Voter suppression, sure. Gerrymandering affects congressional elections.
Agreeing with the main statement here, but there are knock on effects to gerrymandering. Higher races get fewer votes from places where the elections aren’t competitive. With few competitive races there’s less benefit to voting, so marginal voters stay home. That’s why a motivating ballot question is considered a political benefit.
And gerrymandered states can also give the impression that state level results are a foregone conclusion as well. With the electoral college, where the number of votes on the losing side don’t matter, living under a red trifecta creates an impression that the state itself will never flip.
Yeah, which is why Texas was able to push so many republicans through into congress when votes show that it wasn’t so stark.
100%