Question for Republicans that think land is more important than people

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

In 2000 Gore could've won the EV without a single county flipping. The map would still look the same. If that happened would you still argue Bush was the real winner because of how the map looks? Even though this argument is basically obsolete now, it drove me crazy for 4 years, it's one thing to debate the merits of the electoral college, but arguing the true winner is the guy who wins the most land is just asinine.

[John Dibble]

The Electoral Vote is not determined by land. Each state gets a certain number of Representatives to the House, and that number is the same number of EVs that the state gets. The number of Reps, and therefore EVs, is based on population. Land has nothing to do with it. Also, I've never seen anyone argue that the president won because he got more land, just that he received more EVs.

[DaleC76]

Alaska is the largest state in terms of land area (it really gets shorted in most electoral maps), yet is one of the smallest in the Electoral College.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The Electoral Vote is not determined by land. Each state gets a certain number of Representatives to the House, and that number is the same number of EVs that the state gets. The number of Reps, and therefore EVs, is based on population. Land has nothing to do with it. Also, I've never seen anyone argue that the president won because he got more land, just that he received more EVs.

I know that about the EV. Like I said this is a completely different argument, but I have heard it before. You've never seen the analyses that show that Bush won so much more square milage and all that? I wonder if I can find that old post by Reaganfan where cites Dave's county map and basically says cities don't matter.

Philip has also basically argued many times that land is more important than people in voting.

[KEmperor]

So your argument is based on the rantings of Reaganfan and Philip?

[Ben.]

So your argument is based on the rantings of Reaganfan and Philip?

Its a school boy error... but similar things are done by partisan Dems as Philip and Reaganfan do.

[A18]

No, because that's not our current system. I would argue in favor of changing the system, though.

[Alcon]

We should get rid of useless laws, not just change the Constitution because we haven't done it in a while.

[dazzleman]

In 2000 Gore could've won the EV without a single county flipping. The map would still look the same. If that happened would you still argue Bush was the real winner because of how the map looks? Even though this argument is basically obsolete now, it drove me crazy for 4 years, it's one thing to debate the merits of the electoral college, but arguing the true winner is the guy who wins the most land is just asinine.

You're right.  I think Republicans who made the argument that Bush "won big" in 2000 because of the land areas in which he had a majority of votes was delusional.  Bush barely squeaked by, and even as I voted for him and was glad he won, it's ridiculous to pretend that he won big.

This 2004 win, while a bigger win, couldn't be called anywhere near a landslide.  It's considered a solid win in part because 2000 was such a squeaker.

In any case, landslide wins often don't produce a better result than a closer win would have.  The reality is that even in the biggest landslide, 40% of the voters chose the other person, so even a president who has won a landslide has significant opposition.  Does it really matter that much whether its 41% or 47% of the voters?  The reality is, a win is a win, for the most part.

[A18]

No one - or at least, not I - ever said Bush "won big" in 2000. He won the vast majority of the country. Those are two completely different things.

[dazzleman]

No one - or at least, not I - ever said Bush "won big" in 2000. He won the vast majority of the country. Those are two completely different things.

I saw an ad in Newsmax back then that said Bush won big, and it was a line put out by some extreme conservatives.  I never ascribed it to anybody on this forum.

[The Duke]

1. The land area map with county results is instructive on how Democrats get killed in rural areas and have been relegated to urban centers.

2. This does not indicate that Bush won big, just that vast areas of the country are off limits to Democratic candidates.

3. Bush's land area victory is just as relevant as Gore's popular vote victory, which Democrats love to bring up.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

1. The reverse is also true
2. Tell that to Philip, Reaganfan, and many others I've heard using that argument
3. Maybe in practicality, but this was usually used as an attempt to neutralize the PV argument, basically arguing that winning more land = winning more support of the country, which is total nonsense.

[A18]

1. It's also useful for showing that.

1. Either quit making sh!t up or show me where I said Bush won big.

3. I used it to show that the vast majority of counties are GOP territory. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Akno21]

1. The land area map with county results is instructive on how Democrats get killed in rural areas and have been relegated to urban centers.

2. This does not indicate that Bush won big, just that vast areas of the country are off limits to Democratic candidates.

3. Bush's land area victory is just as relevant as Gore's popular vote victory, which Democrats love to bring up.

1. I wouldn't mind losing 10 counties by 1,000 (they only have 1,500 voters, you could say) and winning 1 county by 100,000.

2. Vast low-populated areas are off-limits to Dems. Large urban areas are off-limits for the GOP.

3. The popular vote is meaningless, yes, but it is actual votes.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

1. It's also useful for showing that.

1. Either quit making sh!t up or show me where I said Bush won big.

3. I used it to show that the vast majority of counties are GOP territory. Nothing more, nothing less.

1. Not really, as the urban counties aren't so visible. the 3-D map works better.

2. You said in response to the population proportional county map "if population was even remotely relevant this would mean something". Population IS remotely relevant under the Electoral College since it defines how many EVs a state gets. You also said you think the system should be changed, giving me the impression you want some sort of system where population is utterly meaningless and EVs are assigned based on land or something.
3. Which even electorally, means nothing.

I wish I could find Reaganfan's post on this just to show how asinine his argument was, he actually said something along the lines of "Bush won big in what was a VERY close election"

[A18]

1. Okay, then it's useful for showing this

2. If it was remotely relevant to what the county-by-county map shows: areas, and where they are politically.

3. Cities control states. Not everyone likes that.

We didn't win big in 2000, but we did win reasonably big this time when you look at the seats we gained in the House and Senate. That might have been what Reaganfan was talking about, I dunno.