moodymoony - Tumblr blog

moodymoony · 2 years

Text

Ok, since some folks are still struggling with this: No, having a national popular vote for president wouldn't mean that "just 2 or 3 states would pick the president."

First of all, that's *basically* what's already happening with the Electoral College. Because the states are winner-take-all, it doesn't matter if you lead in a state by 3% or 30%, you get 100% of the vote. So the only states worth campaigning in/listening to are a few swing states, where you need to eek out a 1% lead to win 100% of the points.

We see this in the actual campaign event data. Two thirds of the presidential and vice-presidential post-convention campaign events were conducted in just four states in 2012 (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa). The electoral college doesn't empower rural voters or small states. It just allows campaigns to hyper-focus on the undecided voters of swing states. So if you're a centrist in Ohio, I guess the EC was tailor made for you? But no one else benefits here.

But, would this still happen in a national popular vote, you ask? NO. Of course not.

I don't blame folks for not realizing this intrinsically. They are big numbers, and this "big states blah blah" rhetoric is pervasive. (Notice how often it's "California and New York" though, and never Texas. Ask yourself why.)

Let's assume, for fun, that 100% of the population of the country can and does vote. For rounding purposes, that's 330 million people.

Even if you could get California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania to vote 100% unanimously for the same person, you'd fall woefully short of of 50%, and that's getting EVERY SINGLE PERSON in these states to agree. You need the 9 most populated states to vote 100% turn out in unison to hit 50% of the population.

California (Population: 39,613,493)

Texas (Population: 29,730,311)

Florida (Population: 21,944,577)

New York (Population: 19,299,981)

Pennsylvania (Population: 12,804,123)

Illinois (Population: 12,569,321)

Ohio (Population: 11,714,618)

Georgia (Population: 10,830,007)

North Carolina (Population: 10,701,022)

But, as I've said many many times, states are not political monoliths. Despite what those red v blue electoral maps train you to think, these states aren't hiveminds.

Both of these maps represent the 2016 election. Personally, I like the first one more, since the intensity of the color mirrors the amount of votes, but the second one really drives home how *blended* our communities are politically.

In 2020- 155,508,985 votes were cast. That's 77,754,493 for 51%. How many states, at a minimum, would it take to reach that number based on how they actually voted? Well, let's go from most populated down until we hit 51%.

CA- 11,110,250 for Biden

TX- 5,259,126 for Biden

FL- 5,297,045 for Biden

NY- 5,244,886 for Biden

PN- 3,459,923 for Biden

IL- 3,471,915 for Biden

OH- 2,679,165 for Biden

GA- 2,473,633 for Biden

NC-2,684,292

MI-2,804,040

NJ-2,608,400

VI-2,413,568

WA-2,369,612

AR-1,672,143

TN-1,143,711 (we aren't done yet)

IN 1,242,498

MASS 2,382,202

MI 1,253,014

MA 1,985,023

CO-1,804,352

WIS-1,630,866

MIN- 1,717,077

SC-1,091,541

AL- 849,624 (We're still only at 68 million, by the way)

LA- 856,034

KN- 772,474

OR-1,340,383

OK-503,890

CN-1,080,831

UT-560,282

NV-703,486 (We're getting close now, I promise)

Iowa-759,061

AR-423,932 (I'm so tired of adding these numbers up)

MIS-539,398

KA- 570,323

NM- 501,614 (SO CLOSE I really thought this would do it.)

Nebraska- 374,583 (DAMMIT NEBRASKA! We're still short!)

Idaho- 287,021

And that does it! That puts us above 77,754,493 and it only took every Biden vote from the 38 most populated states.

Hardly the "Californians and New Yorkers making all our decisions for us!" reality that people decry (Never Texas. Even though we had more Biden voters than New York. But Texas isn't the standard boogeyman for a racially, ethnically, religiously diverse, queer coastal city. Even though Texas has 4 of the 10 largest cities in the country, more than California- Houston, San Antonio, Dallas, and Austin)

YES, a lot of people live in California. Yes, a lot of people live in Texas. Yes, it's super weird to me that the city of San Antonio, Texas has almost 3x the number of people in the entire state of Wyoming. (I'm sorry if you think that Wyoming's 73,491 votes for Biden should make or break the election.)

But please remember that individual states and districts still get their representation in Congress. (Which...I have some opinions about how much this actually impacts federal politics that are their own thing.) State governments and local governments still exist.

And this idea that a popular vote system, which we use for senators and governors and mayors and school boards is suddenly ~oppressive~ and ~tyrannical~ when we apply it to the presidency isn't logical. (If 70% of your town lives in apartments, you don't give folks in single family homes an extra vote to balance out their vote for mayor.)

Frankly, going to the popular vote should be a logical first step. Ranked choice ballots (for president and senate), and party proportional voting (for the house) would go a long way towards making people feel like their votes had real power again, increase voter turn out, and I think motivate the parties to better reflect the wishes of their constituents, reduce our political tribalism, and encourage third party participation.

#uma tag aqui #outra tag aqui

4K notes · View notes

moodymoony · 2 years

Text

"queer spaces are for everyone but cis men! safe spaces include everyone but cis men!"

okay

that will require stealth trans men to out themselves in order to receive help

that will require closeted trans women to out themselves in order to receive help

that will require nonbinary people who don't ""look nonbinary"" because they look too masculine to out themselves in order to receive help

it will also alienate transfems & trans people who were AMAB who haven't realized they're trans yet from spaces that could provide them a safe place to explore gender & sexuality and be introduced to the idea of being trans

trans people are eventually going to get uncomfortable with your hatred for cis men, because people who were AMAB are gonna wonder if you secretly hate them for being "actually men" and trans mascs are gonna wonder if you hate them for being men at all

people attracted to cis men are going to feel uncomfortable when they try and bring up their love for men including cis men or bring their cis boyfriends/partners/friends to your spaces

there are cis queer men & queer men who blur the lines between cis and trans and they have just as much a right to queer spaces as you do

^ intersex men also exist including intersex cis men

there is never going to be a group of people who it is alright to blindly hate just because of circumstances of their birth or identity and every time you try you are going to end up hurting people. embrace compassion and nuance

edit: to be clear, "cis queer men" includes gay cis men, bi cis men, aro & ace cis men, etc. etc. & cis queer men who are verifiably cis are still very much queer

62K notes · View notes

moodymoony · 3 years

Photo