Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't understand what the point of this thread is. Counties are a measurement of land area, elections are a measurement of people's votes. Obama got way more votes. There's no reason to continue this because it's based on a statistic that is pointless.
It's just a stat. Lefties reading way, way too much into what I posted. Look, Pres. Obama won. I'll say it again. Pres. Obama won. Does that restore your feelings of security?
It was striking and much-talked-about when Gore won the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote in 2000. Strictly speaking, the popular vote means jack, but it was still a topic. Similarly the number of counties won means jack, but it's a topic. As mentioned in the other thread the electoral system was put in place to prevent regional interests from gaining domination. With that in mind, it becomes interesting that Romney won 77.7 of US counties, does it not?
I don't understand what the point of this thread is. Counties are a measurement of area, elections are a measurement of people's votes. Obama got may more votes. There's no reason to continue this because it's based on commentary that is pointless.
To demonstrate that it's much more impressive when Mitt Romney carries a county the size of New Hampshire with all of 15,000 people because it's smack dab in the middle of the desert, than when Barack Obama wins Manhattan, less than 1% the size of the other county but with 100x as many people.
Some people have this weird fantasy that every acre of sagebrush should get a vote...
It's just a stat. Lefties reading way, way too much into what I posted. Look, Pres. Obama won. I'll say it again. Pres. Obama won. Does that restore your feelings of security?
It was striking and much-talked-about when Gore won the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote in 2000. Strictly speaking, the popular vote means jack, but it was still a topic. Similarly the number of counties won means jack, but it's a topic. As mentioned in the other thread the electoral system was put in place to prevent regional interests from gaining domination. With that in mind, it becomes interesting that Romney won 77.7 of US counties, does it not?
The only real difference between Red and Blue states is Blue states have one or more urban counties that have a vote that is a simple majority of that states total vote. Take Pennsylvania, It has 76 counties and Obama-Biden only carried 6 (Philadephia, Allegheny(Pittsburgh), Behrend(Erie), Lehigh(Allentown),Dauphin(Harrisburg) and Center(Stae Collge(main campus of Penn State). To show Pennsylvania is not unusual in Oregon I think they only carried 4 counties :Multnomah (Protland), Lane (Eugene(Univ of Oregon)),Clackamas(Metro Portland, and Benton (Corvallis (Oregon State Univ)).
Post says Rural voters vote heavily GOP. Believable.
Rural voting counties were never a major decision player in this election but Urban turn out was. Fact.
Election results + post proves that the rural votes are slowly becoming less important for national elections, but still important for localalized elections (like the House).
So you are equating Loving County, TX (pop*: 82) with Los Angeles County, CA (pop*: 9,818,605).
This only confirms that conservatives tend to live in rural areas (ie, places with lots of space but few people want to live there) versus liberals in cities (ie, places where a lot of people want to live but the only place to build is up).
* April 2010 census
Nail on head.
Plus, those rural counties are generally the places with the lowest incomes and highest rates of unemployment.
This is also why Congress is completely out of whack. Gerrymandering has created a system where the Republicans consistently lose the popular vote and yet maintain control of the house because they carve out places where Conservatives live just to stack the deck in their favor.
I wish our system was like the German system where the seats of the lower house are simply selected based on the national popular vote, assuming the party achieves at least 5%.
This would mean that the 435 seats would be divided perfectly based on the nation's political leanings. If the election was 49% Democrats, 45% Republicans and 6% Libertarians, we'd have 213 Democrats, 196 Republicans and 26 Libertarians in the house. Wouldn't that be better than our current system where your vote only counts if you support the top two candidates, or worse, not at all if you live in a gerrymandered district with views in opposition to your own?
Nice response...just what I had hoped for. So far no one disputes that Mitt Romney won 77.7 pct of counties, or more than 3 out of 4.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who cares?
