• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Can all of the "LAND DOESN'T VOTE!!" people chime in since Trump won the popular vote??

That's up to Donald to send his supporters marching to the homes of those 220 / 53 Republicans to make sure they stay in line and support his every whim. Democrats should focus as much as possible on lending strength to their state and local governmental institutions over the next 2 years. Let MAGA embrace and act on its worst impulses.
 
Ah, but with his "Spanky and Our Gang" nominations there are already signs of trouble spoiling the MAGA forest.

Senate Republicans made clear they wouldn’t rubber-stamp Donald Trump’s most controversial cabinet picks, pushing another of the president-elect’s selections to the brink this past week. But there are limits on how far they can go without risking political self-destruction.

Republican Senators Play Game of Chicken With Trump on Cabinet Picks. If Pete Hegseth, the Pentagon selection, makes it to a confirmation vote, will GOP lawmakers dare defy the president-elect?, Siobhan Hughes, Brian Schwartz and Natalie Andrews, The Wall Street Journal (Paywall), 12/7/2024

If the Democrats deploy a left of center and not a progressive state strategy, they just might reverse the power structure in Congress following the midterm elections. Which is the kind of rebalancing I think most voters really wanted in November. Harris was hampered by association with Biden's progressive governance, and then she cemented the association by choosing a progressive running mate. Republicans are paying attention too.
 
You have wildly misunderstood what "land doesn't vote" is even talking about.

You seem to be under the impression that the claim was "land doesn't vote, therefore Biden won." And that is laughably wrong.

"Land doesn't vote" comes up because right wing idiots kept bringing up maps of the 2016 elections, broken down by county in an intentionally-deceptive way, to try and make wrong claims about Trump actually winning in 2016. Or, they'd be whining about the nation being controlled by "just these tiny little blue areas," always leaving out the fact that the blue areas represented more people.

The complete sentence is: Land doesn't vote, people vote.

I hope this helps your confusion about what we were saying. I can't answer your question because its premise was so comically flawed.
 
People bring this up a lot:

Let me ask you the question:

Is the electoral college actually accomplishing this goal?
 
Winning "fair and square" hasn't been the lament of the non-trumpers.

Remember, it's trump and his violent mob that lied their asses off about the 2020 election's not being "fair and square".

Now, if you want to talk about the Electoral College, and whether the Constitution should be amended so that the EC is disappeared, say that. But when you start out bitching about one political side - in this case, non-trumpers - and making claims you cannot corroborate, you sabotage your own thread.
 
Those maps showing all counties in the U.S. and how they voted are a somewhat good argument for the need for the EC. We can all see that the majority of the red counties in the middle of the country make up a significantly higher area of the U.S. than the blue counties. It does not matter the population density of the middle of the country. So what if there are large expanses of land where people dont live? There are still people living in those states. The majority of our nation's population lives on the two coasts, and the overwhelming percentage of democrat voters live in those coastal areas. If we only relied on the popular vote, and the dems in the coastal areas always won because the election always went their way by just a couple million votes, then that would leave all those people in that huge area of the country without representation. It's not their fault that they live in sparsely populated areas. If rural people didn't matter and didn't need their particular needs to be met, why dont we just move them all west and east? We dont need Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, the Dakotas, Texas, OK, Kansas, etc, right? Everyone would have to give up beef but that's OK......
 
Thank you for participating. And that was an interesting take, but I don't think that's what posters who brought up land doesn't vote were talking about. The land doesn't vote stuff was about how the electoral college was unfair, and gave sparsely populated republican states with large areas of land where no one lived electoral votes that gave them an advantage in the election. The detractors of the EC are of the opinion that it doesn't matter that most of the population of the U.S. is concentrated on the two coasts and is mostly democratic. They figure that if we did away with the EC, and the dems on the two coasts always win, then that would be good, and screw the rednecks in the vast middle of the country.
 
Maidenrules29 said:
Thank you for participating. And that was an interesting take, but I don't think that's what posters who brought up land doesn't vote were talking about.
Click to expand...
You're wrong, sorry.
Maidenrules29 said:
The land doesn't vote stuff was about how the electoral college was unfair,
Click to expand...
Not really, no.

I'm one of the people who said it, and I know what it was in response to.

Even if some people used it in the context you describe, it doesn't make your OP any more valid. Why would Trump's 2024 victory change any part of the saying? You realize this is not a specific comment about Trump, you've admitted as much.

No, we don't think "dems on the two coasts always win" in that scenario. You're aware people in Texas vote Democrat and that people in California vote Republican, right?
 
Maidenrules29 said:
Those maps showing all counties in the U.S. and how they voted are a somewhat good argument for the need for the EC.
Click to expand...
No they're not, because the electoral college is not decided at a county level. People use the maps broken down by county because they want to artificially inflate the apparent amount of red in the nation.
Maidenrules29 said:
We can all see that the majority of the red counties in the middle of the country make up a significantly higher area of the U.S. than the blue counties. It does not matter the population density of the middle of the country.
Click to expand...
Right, and area, aka land, does not vote.
Again, people in all states vote for all parties. This dichotomy of "coast = democrat, interior = republican" is outright false.

Find yourself a map of areas where red/blue isn't a binary, but shaded by vote total. It's a purple nation.

And a final comment:

The electoral college does not cause more attention to be paid to Wyoming or South Dakota in an election cycle. So even the claimed goal isn't actually accomplished here.
 
Sure, but my point was using maps like that to misrepresent the amount of the country's support for a particular candidate. Land mass and population are not the same thing. So for example:

Hudson County NJ


This small county in the state of NJ, has more people living there than the entire state of Vermont and Wyoming - not combined. This is why maps can be misleading in terms of voting and why the phrase "land doesn't vote" is applicable.


No, the popular vote would not always mean that as we just witnessed in the 2024 election. There are certainly arguments for fair representation in relation to the EC, but there's also the issue of minority rule through it as well, which we've also had on instances where the presidents who didn't win the popular vote won via the EC,
 

LOL. Trump (barely) winning the popular vote after running for a third time doesn't change the harsh reality that the GOP would be almost irrelevant on a national level (when it comes to the presidency at least) if every election were decided by the popular vote. It took the GOP 20 years to win the popular vote again...which is embarrassing.
 
Not entirely sure what you're asking.

Election result maps that paint entire localities or states the color for whichever party won the election in that locality/state only show who won our incredibly archaic idiotic winner-takes-all elections (well, most places have that system) in that location.

They explicitly do not show how many people voted for other candidates, or how many people did not vote.

Because the, again, archaic and idiotic winner-takes-all elections do not care about them.
 
Scatty Kitty said:
More than half the country didn't want him to be president. He didn't win the majority of Americans. He won a plurality of Americans.
Click to expand...

Winning by a plurality (short of a majority) of the electorate was true for many (other) elected federal officials, but since Trump is icky the system should be changed.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Winning by a plurality (short of a majority) of the electorate was true for many (other) elected federal officials, but since Trump is icky the system should be changed.
Click to expand...

Most government officials didn't try to overthrow an election.
 
eman623 said:
Neither did Trump
Click to expand...

Trump said he loves the people who tried to coup the government for him to stay in power. He's now threatening to go after political opponents. So yes, he did try to overthrow the government. If anything he's still trying to.
 
Scatty Kitty said:
Trump said he loves the people who tried to coup the government for him to stay in power. He's now threatening to go after political opponents. So yes, he did try to overthrow the government. If anything he's still trying to.
Click to expand...
No he didn't. TDS is boring.
 
Land still doesn't vote. The EC is still an unfair system. Doesn't mean someone I don’t like will never win the popular vote. It's still a better way of electing leaders.
 

he appears to have won "fair and square". However, that doesn't mean that all the people talking about how many counties trump won will stop talking about how many counties he won. I saw someone with a tshirt saying that trump's coverage was greater than verizon's, so the "trump wins all the land" concept is far from dead.


and i think POTUS should be elected by popular vote. Every american's vote should count the same. Small/rural states shouldn't have more per-capita impact. And if you live in a non battleground state and dont support the leading candidate, your vote doesn't count. That's just wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.