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
    15·
    3 months ago

    I took it to mean “I don’t know if this is actually true or not, but I’m going to post it anyway” which is exactly where tons of quickly-spreading misinformation comes from and how it gets passed on.

    Specifically, the claim that it’s the popular vote overall seems off to me, though I don’t currently have time to look into it (I did some quick googling but did not get a conclusive answer). What I mean to say is that, yes, all of the electoral votes are allocated to whomever is considered a winner and it is not proportional (except in two states). I was under the impression, however, that it went by districts so whomever won the most districts got the full share of votes (i.e. not the overall statewide popular vote).

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      6·
      3 months ago

      I took it to mean “I don’t know if this is actually true or not, but I’m going to post it anyway” which is exactly where tons of quickly-spreading misinformation comes from and how it gets passed on.

      followed by:

      though I don’t currently have time to look into it

      Seriously?

      • tiredofsametab@kbin.run
        2·
        3 months ago

        I had to start work and I was talking about actual post rather than comments, but I suppose that’s a fair criticism. I did mean it to mean that I was coming back to it (as I am now).

    • Reyali@lemm.eeOP
      21·
      3 months ago

      And what you’re saying now is, “What you said doesn’t align to what I think, so I’m sure you’re wrong.”

      So here’s proof:

      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·
        3 months ago

        And what you’re saying now is, “What you said doesn’t align to what I think, so I’m sure you’re wrong.”

        I had to start work so sorry for the delayed response. No, I didn’t assert that you were wrong. I did say the wording left a lot of room to be suspicious.

        I appreciate the source above and, indeed, it looks like I was wrong on that specific part (at least according to three other source, including ballotpedia).

        Edit for clarity: my reasoning was not “you are wrong because I don’t agree” but rather the wording itself just gave me an off feeling (even had I agreed with it fully).

        • Reyali@lemm.eeOP
          1·
          3 months ago

          Thanks for the clarification on your intent. I understand (and appreciate) skepticism; however, I took your original comment to be a dig rather than helpful criticism, but your clarification here helps me read it more positively.

          Someone else commented and used words that aligned with my intent behind the comment, which was just to leave open the door that there are nuances I may be uninformed about. But I recognize I could have been more explicit about what research I had done to maybe establish a little more credibility.

          Thanks for responding with such a level head!

          • tiredofsametab@kbin.run
            2·
            3 months ago

            Yeah, I actually felt bad last night about my wording choice and explanation, so apologies for that. Thank you as well for engaging. Cheers!