A SCOTUS Opening

[BmorePat87]

(10-28-2020, 04:30 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Let's say you have a 10 square mile area with 5 million people crammed in like sardines.  (No idea why people would like that, but whatever).  Let's say there are 3 school districts in that area and 3 local governments.

Now lets say there are 2.5 million people in a 300 square mile area.  75 different school districts with  75 different local governments.

Why should those 5 million in a tiny little area with minimum school districts and local governments override the 2.5 covering a vast amount of space, far more school districts and far more local governments?

Maybe I am thinking about this wrong and I am willing to listen.  And I will admit my analogy may suck, but I think you get the idea I am trying to convey.

Because 5m is greater than 2.5m, and in our federal system those local school districts and governments are still beholden to the 2.5m who live in those localities, not those 5m. 

Not to mention those 5m and 2.5m are not homogenous, so they're not just two voting blocs. 

[Mickeypoo]

(10-28-2020, 06:38 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Because 5m is greater than 2.5m, and in our federal system those local school districts and governments are still beholden to the 2.5m who live in those localities, not those 5m. 

Not to mention those 5m and 2.5m are not homogenous, so they're not just two voting blocs. 

So basically what you are saying is that one city that makes up say 2% of state X geographically should be able to control the vote and outcome of elections for the other 98% of state X geographically?

[BigPapaKain]

(10-28-2020, 07:22 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: So basically what you are saying is that one city that makes up say 2% of state X geographically should be able to control the vote and outcome of elections for the other 98% of state X geographically?

Thats how majority voting works.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-28-2020, 07:22 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: So basically what you are saying is that one city that makes up say 2% of state X geographically should be able to control the vote and outcome of elections for the other 98% of state X geographically?

5M + 2.5M = 7.5M people

5M/7.5M x 100 = 67% of the states population

So if 67% of NY state's population votes for Candidate X for governor they win, don't they?  Regardless of where that 67% of the population is located on the map.  Not sure why you think someone should win an election with only 33% of the popular vote because of square miles.

[BmorePat87]

(10-28-2020, 07:22 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: So basically what you are saying is that one city that makes up say 2% of state X geographically should be able to control the vote and outcome of elections for the other 98% of state X geographically?

That's how voting tends to work in direct state wide elections. In the case of New York, 43% of the state chooses to live in NYC. Those 17 Clinton counties contain 70% of the state's population.

[Belsnickel]

(10-28-2020, 07:22 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: So basically what you are saying is that one city that makes up say 2% of state X geographically should be able to control the vote and outcome of elections for the other 98% of state X geographically?

Land doesn't vote. People do.

[Mickeypoo]

(10-29-2020, 07:36 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Land doesn't vote. People do.

I get that.

It just seems weird that literally one or two cities can control an entire state.

I can see both sides.

[GMDino]

(10-29-2020, 08:57 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: I get that.

It just seems weird that literally one or two cities can control an entire state.

I can see both sides.

Unless I've read all this wrong no one said the cities control the state...the voters do.

Doesn't matter if they all live in one city or are spread evenly throughout the state.

There are 25 voting age people living on my street.  All but 4 live on one end with a big field between the rest of us.

I know for sure that 6 are Biden supporters and 12 are Trump supporters and the other 7 I'm not sure about.

All of our votes count exactly the same no matter how close we live to our neighbor or which end of the street we are on.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-29-2020, 08:57 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: I get that.

It just seems weird that literally one or two cities can control an entire state.

I can see both sides.

It’s not cities. It’s the people. The majority. Not the majority’s geographical distribution on the map.

[Belsnickel]

(10-29-2020, 08:57 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: I get that.

It just seems weird that literally one or two cities can control an entire state.

I can see both sides.

So, I live in Virginia. Specifically, I live in the Shenandoah Valley which is a rural, agricultural area in the western part of the state. Virginia currently has a Democratic House, Senate, and Governor. However, this is all because of the more heavily populated urban areas such as NoVA, Richmond, and Hampton Roads. Outside of those areas, the state is predominantly right leaning. Because of this, no one in my area has any real representation in the state house because I, as a progressive, am stuck with a Republican Delegate and Senator, and the right-leaning folks in the area have a Delegate and Senator that can't get much done. Also, because all the party leadership comes from NoVA, they have zero idea about the needs of the more rural areas in the Valley, in SWVA, or in southside. So believe me when I say that I can see both sides of this argument. We have three metro areas that control the whole state.

There are certainly frustrations with this. I get it. I am constantly berating the state Democratic party over the lack of any concern for my area and the lack of representation from other areas of the state within party leadership. Republicans in my area would happily give NoVA to DC or Maryland and kick Hampton Roads off to NC if they could (though the economic fallout would be huge).

All that being said, check this out. This is the 2016 electoral map for Virginia. Virginia went for Clinton.


Just interesting to see how much red there is, but the state went blue, and likely will go blue in a few days.

[Mickeypoo]

(10-29-2020, 09:20 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, I live in Virginia. Specifically, I live in the Shenandoah Valley which is a rural, agricultural area in the western part of the state. Virginia currently has a Democratic House, Senate, and Governor. However, this is all because of the more heavily populated urban areas such as NoVA, Richmond, and Hampton Roads. Outside of those areas, the state is predominantly right leaning. Because of this, no one in my area has any real representation in the state house because I, as a progressive, am stuck with a Republican Delegate and Senator, and the right-leaning folks in the area have a Delegate and Senator that can't get much done. Also, because all the party leadership comes from NoVA, they have zero idea about the needs of the more rural areas in the Valley, in SWVA, or in southside. So believe me when I say that I can see both sides of this argument. We have three metro areas that control the whole state.

There are certainly frustrations with this. I get it. I am constantly berating the state Democratic party over the lack of any concern for my area and the lack of representation from other areas of the state within party leadership. Republicans in my area would happily give NoVA to DC or Maryland and kick Hampton Roads off to NC if they could (though the economic fallout would be huge).

All that being said, check this out. This is the 2016 electoral map for Virginia. Virginia went for Clinton.


Just interesting to see how much red there is, but the state went blue, and likely will go blue in a few days.

Thank you for this response.  Very similar in NY and I feel pretty much the same as you and can see it from both sides.
There are a lot of states that look like VA does.  "Liberal" NY is the same, mostly red.