Shadow1980 said:
And? So what if red counties cover more area geographically? I've seen these sorts of maps trotted out over the past 16 years with Republicans using them to say "Look how red America is!" It's a misleading map. Some remote county with less than 1000 people in it shouldn't count more on a per capita basis than a county with 100,000+ people, and Wyoming and Vermont voters shouldn't count for more than New York or Texas. Also, not all of those blue counties are urban, and not all the red ones are rural. Also, your little map there doesn't address mine. 12 states, only one of them (New Hampshire) a small heavily-rural state, essentially determine the entire election. Candidates will never pay Wyoming any more attention than they do California, because they know how those states will end up on election day. The Electoral College means that only competitive states are going to get any attention in the lead up to the general election. Why is this acceptable? Why should Republican voters in deep blue states and Democratic voters in deep red states be absolutely worthless? |
The writing's in the bloody war. Democratic Party voters have an advantage in population and it's a near permanent one. Make votations by popular vote the new thing and you might as well disband the GOP since it will never win urban voters like Dems will.
The last person to do so was Ronald Reagan, and it was more because the Dems were all around considered useless and their candidate shite...
As for why they should be worthless. These are solid states. Republicans will not espouse equality and start winning urban votes. Blue candidates will not promise to slash taxes and cripple federal legislation. The parties should be called the Urban and Mountain parties, because it's more appropriate.
Or in speakeasy, parties cannot win deep red and blue states, hence why they don't bother and their only hope seems to be represented by battleground states as battleground state voters are not aligned with either party.
