I’ve seen several people claim that their state’s vote for the US presidential election doesn’t matter because their district is gerrymandered, which does not matter for most states.

Most states use the state’s popular vote to determine who the entire state’s electoral college votes go to. No matter how gerrymandered your district is*, every individual vote matters for assigning the electoral vote. [ETA: Nearly] Every single district in a state could go red but the state goes blue for president because of the popular vote.

*Maine and Nebraska are the notable differences who allot individual electors based on the popular vote within their congressional districts and the overall popular vote. It’s possible there are other exceptions and I’m sure commenters will happily point them out.

Edit: added strikethrough to my last statement because now I have confirmed it.

Of the 50 states, all but two award all of their presidential electors to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote in the state (Maine and Nebraska each award two of their electors to the candidate who wins a plurality of the statewide vote; the remaining electors are allocated to the winners of the plurality vote in the states’ congressional districts). (source)

  • tiredofsametab@kbin.run
    2·
    5 months ago

    Generally, the person stating a claim is the one that needs to substantiate that claim. If someone makes a post and then says in their own post “I’m probably not right but I can’t be bothered to check yet am still going to post anyway”, that strikes me as lazy at best and vain or shady at worst.

    • isles@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      5 months ago

      I think you’re getting downvotes because you’re projecting a narrative onto @Reyali and using quotes around non-quotes. They didn’t say they were “probably not right.”

      I agree, everyone should be skeptical of information someone else is sharing, because we can’t assume intention. But what would motivate someone to say “I’m probably not right” anyway?

      What’s interesting to me is that for you, your guard went up for someone admitting a potential of having missed something, which may make you more susceptible to people who are confidently wrong.

      Most others’ reaction is the opposite, taking their statement as an attempt to be genuine and open to feedback. If someone invites feedback, is willing to admit they might be wrong, that’s a much better starting point for conversation.