See This Red Area? This Is *Sand* - eviltoast
    • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      What’s your point, though? I’m not sure if you’re pointing out that this is basically a population density map in order to argue something in particular? Because it seems like OP’s entire point was that while the majority of Americans are not conservative, people disguise this fact by NOT using population density maps to demonstrate political spreads.

      So, yeah, people live in cities. And most Americans swing left. Glad we can both read the map and agree on its message 👍

        • Optional@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          4 months ago

          Probably why when the slaver’s college was being debated the “let’s not concentrate political power in a few northeastern cities” argument held more sway.

          • bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            4 months ago

            I mean if by very recent you mean around the 60’s sure. But that’s still for like 20% of this country’s existence. Early in the country’s history New York/Boston/Philadelphia also had a lot of power in deciding who became president.

      • Crowfiend@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I’m ancient times, people outside city walls weren’t even allowed to vote. Add in the fact that humanity is tribal in nature, and your statement holds even less true.

        You think the peasants outside city walls were even allowed to vote on anything? They were literally outsiders that knew little to nothing about the inner (more populated) parts of cities.

        A city’s overall opinion is literally more important than rural mud slinging opinion, if for no other reason than because more people live there, and are affected by policy.

        Edit: sorry for being mean

        • blaue_Fledermaus@mstdn.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Sorry, I wasn’t trying to create polemic. I’m well aware that for most of history democratic voting wasn’t a thing.

          Just wanted to add a bit of context, yes, by population city opinion is more important NOW, but until very recently, considering strictly population, it was not, and the current political tensions are in part caused by this change.

          I wish respectful conversation, sorry if I seemed rude.

          • Crowfiend@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Sorry if I seemed rude. Ignoring life problems, I’m not great at talking to people or voicing my thoughts, I just get really angry over things since a car wreck a couple years ago. Like all my feelings towards anything at all have been amplified. I do genuinely hope you have a good rest of your day.

            I do still feel that your statement on the matter excludes the fact that, since the dawn of history, the town/city has been infinitely more relevant to voting matters than rural could ever be. As I said, the people living outside the city walls were irrelevant to practical sociopolitical matters.

            • blaue_Fledermaus@mstdn.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              Certainly, but in the context of democracies, the rural people were made very relevant, being the majority, but now are being pushed back into being irrelevant, and are angry about it.

              I too wish you a good rest of the day, and a wonderful weekend, and may you come across people that stand with you so you can feel better.