Forget About Popular The Vote, Let's Look At The Geographic Vote !

A fresh perspective on the 2016 election



And how that looks




The cold hard facts put this in interesting perspective, I ask all Americans why should only 57 counties control all of America ?

This has made me think that maybe even a newer style election model is needed, each region is represented equally regardless of the population,
each county gets one vote, now the urban centers can't control the rest of the country.
At 1571 county wins; you win the presidency. Think of how that what change the way people ran for office?
No state or area of the country could be ignored anymore.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Now compare that map with a crime density statistics map.

They are exactly the same.

Coincidence?

We keep hearing from the Left that Clinton won the popular vote, but what they don't tell us, is that it was only a couple of states that are Democrat strongholds those votes came from.
They are trying desperately to find some way, any way, to spin the results. They do not seem to be able to understand that America is sick of their Liberal policies, that have done little to nothing to help this nation. They define "sore loser"

a reply to: Blue_Jay33
S&F
Excellent post! I am so sick of hearing people yell about the popular vote. I am one of the people that lives in a very rural area. We are ignored as it is right now! Why should New York, Chicago, and other large cities be the ones calling the shots?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

why should only 57 counties control all of America ?

Because that is where the majority of the population lives. Those people's votes count just as much as someone living in a rural area. The US Constitution awards electors to the Electoral College based upon votes, not land mass. I mean it's fairly straight forward, no?

My daughter that hasn't spoken to me since the election made sure to let me know that she lives in a 'cultured city' (Philadelphia) and the rest of the country (rural areas) is full of rednecks.

Culture seems to correlate with high crime rates.

Suburban and rural rates are similar, urban rates are higher.
crime

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I've noticed that as you get more and more urban, everyone becomes more and more of a rude selfish and generally unpleasant person to be around. I think it is the overcrowding that eats everyone away until there is little left. There should be a name for this but I'm not sure what it is. There was a time when I wanted to move downtown from the suburbs.

Then I did the polar opposite of that and moved to rural New Hampshire. Everyone is dramatically more friendly than when I lived in the suburbs. The economy is great in New Hampshire and people's values are the most libertarian as you will find anywhere. Whats fascinating is how the moment you step across the border to Vermont almost everyone is a Bernie Sanders type socialist. Their minimum wage is going to be $10.50 which I presume is the highest for a rural state, and the state of New Hamshire has no minimum wage but does have to use have the Federal minimum wage. I do think there were counties that gave Ron Paul over 30% of the vote in 2008 in New Hampshire.

I'd advise everyone to vote with your feet because its the only way you can see a real change in politics in your life. All the libertarian places are the most successful places, and the more libertarian, the more successful you and your family can be with the least effort on your part.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Great thread. I definitely agree that large, populous democratic regions should NOT speak for the all of America. Over half of the countries population is densely compacted into those small areas. I think its absolutely amazing and greatly admire our founding fathers for FORESEEING (as this was not a big of a problem 200 something years ago) and coming up with a system that makes the election fairer for everyone. I've explained this to a few different people and these maps would have made it way more.

No you know how the people of Northern California or Michigans UP feel. SCREWED!!!

Very good research. Small dense population areas cannot be allowed to control the whole country. That is like creating a dictatorship. The people in these highly populated areas do not even produce a fraction of their foods they consume. Our system of the electoral college tries to balance this, and even though it is not perfect, it does keep a few big cities from enslaving the rest of the nation.

Yes, lets take a look at the fact that a vote in Michigan counts 3x a vote in California.

Because we do statistics here, people! You come and learn, you come and learn. In fact, we learned nothing besides that there are populated areas and deserted areas, and if you correlate them, you see that some people in a low-populated area have had the same influence on the vote like many more people in some high-populated areas.

What do we learn?

(1) Crimestatistics in absolute numbers (in thousands, for example) are worthless, if you compare them against relative (in percent %).
(2) Some people just want to embellish their narrative that the number of votes does not count, but the electorial college (collegiate? don't know, don't care enough).

Yeah, sorry. Nice pics, but worthless. Because you compare absolute numbers (in crime) to relative numbers (voters % per district).

a reply to: rickymouse

WHAT?! Big cities enslaving the rest? You saw a bit too much of that juvenile dystopia-novel "The Hunger Games".

electoral college tries to balance

So this is the new narrative? How many kinds of stupid do your leaders think you (not you, rickymouse, please don't take it personally, its just a problem with people taking this for real) are?

a reply to: DrStevenBrule

High density=higher crime rate. I know it's a joke, but it really is too easy to disprove the correlation.

Man you just got a huge Trump supporter to defend the liberals. Hope you're proud

originally posted by: ksiezyc
a reply to: DrStevenBrule

High density=higher crime rate. I know it's a joke, but it really is too easy to disprove the correlation.

Man you just got a huge Trump supporter to defend the liberals. Hope you're proud

I posted a link showing higher crime rates (per capita) in urban areas.

It is more than the case of higher population having more crimes.... it is more crimes per person.

a reply to: butcherguy
That doesn't dispel the idea that it is due to high density. More victims to be had by the same criminal. High density plays a major role and is the major point...........

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: Blue_Jay33
S&F
Excellent post! I am so sick of hearing people yell about the popular vote. I am one of the people that lives in a very rural area. We are ignored as it is right now! Why should New York, Chicago, and other large cities be the ones calling the shots?

So if one person lived in say... Wyoming, should his vote count hundreds of thousands of times more than yours?

originally posted by: ksiezyc
a reply to: butcherguy
That doesn't dispel the idea that it is due to high density. More victims to be had by the same criminal. High density plays a major role and is the major point...........

Do you live in an urban area or a rural area?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

If the counties were colored to show the make up of the vote in the county (i.e. %red, %blue, how much of the map would actually be purple?

Here's a different map showing vote totals:

Actually...

Overall Trump won approximately 2,600 counties to Clinton’s 500, or about 84% of the geographic United States. However, Clinton won 88 of of the 100 largest counties (including Washington D.C.). Without these 100 largest counties she would have lost by 11.5 million votes.

For quite some time now, people have been leaving rural areas in droves and going to... densely populated areas. The electoral college is in need of a major update.