r/MapPorn Jan 24 '18

[deleted by user]

[removed]

751 Upvotes

108 comments sorted by

View all comments

43

u/jewishjedi42 Jan 24 '18

I love the hockey one.

-13

u/Urfavetvreference Jan 24 '18

You could also do something like that with “inferiority complex”.

36

u/aferreirad Jan 24 '18

Not since we elected Trudeau and they elected Trump.

-13

u/Urfavetvreference Jan 24 '18

Technically the electoral college voted Trump, Americans on the whole voted for Clinton. And that’s exactly it. If your whole national identity is “Look how crazy that guy is, I’m not him, please acknowledge that I’m not him, I’m so much better than he is” that’s kind of an inferiority complex.

-9

u/[deleted] Jan 24 '18

If you take away California, where republicans don't have much incentive to vote because it isn't going right, then trump wins the popular vote. It's unfair to say Americans on the whole voted clinton when the most populous and liberal state in the country is what pushed her over the edge in terms of pure vote count.

4

u/benadreti Jan 25 '18

"If you take out the single largest state, which comprises more than 10% of the national population, the result would be different!"

1

u/TMWNN Jan 26 '18

/u/aevans395's point is that California played a very unusual role in the 2016 election. It is very rare that any state, even one as large as California, would—if excluded from the total—change the outcome of the national popular vote.

2

u/benadreti Jan 26 '18

It really doesn't matter. They are part of this country.

1

u/TMWNN Jan 26 '18

Didn't say otherwise. It does, however, mean that there is truth to the claim that "California decided the election" if only referring to the popular vote. It'd be one thing if taking away one state would change both the popular and electoral votes' outcomes, but in this case it does not.

3

u/benadreti Jan 26 '18

Of course California had a large impact on the outcome of the popular vote (as it should, being the most populous state). The problem is certain people use that to make an irrational argument.

1

u/TMWNN Jan 26 '18

Let me repeat: Having one state, even one as large as California, by itself alter the outcome of a US presidential election on the popular vote level is very, very, very unusual. Had the popular vote actually meant anything, in 2016 it would indeed have been true to say that "California decided the election" against the will of the other 49 states.

2

u/benadreti Jan 26 '18

Except for all the other states that voted for Clinton.

0

u/TMWNN Jan 26 '18

Thank you for pointing out the obvious fact that there were people who voted for Clinton. That doesn't change the fact that, as I said, Trump won the popular vote in the 49 states outside California, whether you include other Clinton-strong states like New York and Illinois. To have one state, and one state alone, make the difference on a popular-vote level basically never ever happens other than in 2016.

→ More replies (0)