How cities voted

[Docere]

Romney won no wards in Philadelphia, while Trump won three wards - two in semi-suburban white ethnic NE Philadelphia, plus one in South Philadelphia (Italians love Trump!)

http://billypenn.com/2016/11/09/nope-not...ese-philly-wards-topping-romney-in-2012/

[rds70]

Here is the final result for Denver:



One interesting thing I discovered looking at election results for the City over the last 20 years: While the number of votes for the Republican candidate has remained about the same (between 58,000 and 62,000), the number of votes for the Democrat candidate has more than doubled (120,000 in 1996 to 244,000 in 2016). This would seem to be a clear indicator that most of the people that have moved to Denver over that time tend to be Democrats. BTW, the City's population has increased by about 200,000 in that time period.

[dimondpark]

I'm getting tired of these farflung states determining who gets to be our president. Their votes appear to be more important than mine just because I live in California.

This is the 2nd consecutive GOP president that didnt earn the White House as a result of the will of the people.

[eschaton]

This is the only precinct map I've found for Allegheny County. Not the best quality.



Trump only won three precincts in the city of Pittsburgh, which comprised parts of the neighborhoods of Overbrook, Lincoln Place, and New Homestead. IIRC John McCain won all of these precincts back in 2008, so there's no tremendous shift here.

Allegheny County actually voted for Hillary at a slightly higher margin than Obama in 2012. From what I can see, she ran slightly better than Obama in some of the upper-middle class suburban areas, but Trump doesn't seem to have done particularly well in working-class white parts of the county. The biggest shifts seem to be in Penn Hills and Monroeville, which is probably due to the growing black suburban population in those areas.

[Flyers2001]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

I'm getting tired of these farflung states determining who gets to be our president. Their votes appear to be more important than mine just because I live in California.

This is the 2nd consecutive GOP president that didnt earn the White House as a result of the will of the people.

So your not a fan of the electoral College?

California has 55 electoral votes, more than any other state. So your vote did count.

Farflung states such as Texas? Pennsylvania? Florida?

You are probably one of those ridiculous types that wants California to become its own Country. Good luck

[Leo the Dog]

The assumption that the vote tallies would remain the same in a popular vote system instead of the Electoral College is flawed.

We would see members of all parties campaigning for votes in areas that are solid blue and red.

The GOP spends very little time or money in CA because they have a winning path without CA's 55 electoral college votes. Same could be said with Dems ignoring middle America because they can win if things fall into place without their votes.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Flyers2001

So your not a fan of the electoral College?

California has 55 electoral votes, more than any other state. So your vote did count.

But not the same as voters in other states. Voters in California, New York, Florida, Texas and the like have much less of a vote than those in Wyoming, Vermont, Montana, Alaska and the like.

Fact is that a Wyoming vote is MUCH more powerful than a CA vote. This is inherently unfair and anti-democratic,

Originally Posted by Flyers2001

You are probably one of those ridiculous types that wants California to become its own Country. Good luck

Supporting democracy and the will of the people has nothing to do with supporting succession.

And if CA seceded (which will never happen) the ironic thing would be that it would be closer to American ideals than the rest of the country. It would be the "real" U.S., with far more direct democracy.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Crawford

But not the same as voters in other states. Voters in California, New York, Florida, Texas and the like have much less of a vote than those in Wyoming, Vermont, Montana, Alaska and the like.

Fact is that a Wyoming vote is MUCH more powerful than a CA vote. This is inherently unfair and anti-democratic

Actually, a Wyoming vote and a California vote are both completely useless.

A Florida vote, now that's a powerful vote.

A New Hampshire vote is precious too, but less powerful - the state has much less electoral weight.

An Ohio vote is approximately halfway between those in terms of "power".

[memph]

I wonder how many people in non-swing states don't bother voting because their vote doesn't count as much.

[Flyers2001]

Originally Posted by Crawford

But not the same as voters in other states. Voters in California, New York, Florida, Texas and the like have much less of a vote than those in Wyoming, Vermont, Montana, Alaska and the like.

Fact is that a Wyoming vote is MUCH more powerful than a CA vote. This is inherently unfair and anti-democratic,


Supporting democracy and the will of the people has nothing to do with supporting succession.

And if CA seceded (which will never happen) the ironic thing would be that it would be closer to American ideals than the rest of the country. It would be the "real" U.S., with far more direct democracy.

These arguments only come out when "your" party loss. The 4 years between elections the crying about the voting process disappear. I thought the Bernie supporters were bad when taking an L, but man you take it to a whole new level in every thread. Hilary ran a terrible campaign, crying about it now does you no good. Move on....

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by lio45

Actually, a Wyoming vote and a California vote are both completely useless.

Yeah, in practice, both votes are useless because neither state is competitive. But the WY electoral votes still count towards the total far more than the CA electoral votes.

Wyoming has around 500k residents and 3 electoral votes. CA has around 37 million residents and 55 electoral votes. So a vote in WY is around 5-6 times as valuable as a vote in CA.

If the electoral college were exactly representative of population differences between the states, that would be one thing, but it isn't. The electoral college strongly favors voters lightly populated states.

I don't even know if this would have changed the election, as there are big states that went Trump (TX, FL) and little states that went Clinton (VT, HI). But the small state voters clearly have far more valuable votes.

[lio45]

Strictly speaking, I'm sure we'll agree that the electoral college system mostly tends to give a "per state" bonus. (Which has absolutely nothing to do with land area.)

It helps the Dems in New England... but overall, yes, in general, it does give the GOP a little boost while hindering the Dems, as most of the rural states favor the former.

[memph]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yeah, in practice, both votes are useless because neither state is competitive. But the WY electoral votes still count towards the total far more than the CA electoral votes.

Wyoming has around 500k residents and 3 electoral votes. CA has around 37 million residents and 55 electoral votes. So a vote in WY is around 5-6 times as valuable as a vote in CA.

If the electoral college were exactly representative of population differences between the states, that would be one thing, but it isn't. The electoral college strongly favors voters lightly populated states.

I don't even know if this would have changed the election, as there are big states that went Trump (TX, FL) and little states that went Clinton (VT, HI). But the small state voters clearly have far more valuable votes.

Trump still would've won regardless. Seven of the top 10 most populous states went to Trump (TX, FL, PA, OH, MI, GA, NC). The states that Trump won have about 56.4% of the US population and 56.9% of the electoral college points. The key is that a lot of the swing states went to Trump. I think he did less well in a lot of the classic red states compared to previous GOP candidates, states like GA, SC and TX, but not by enough to lose any of them, while gaining enough support in the midwest/rust belt states to flip most of them.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

But not the same as voters in other states. Voters in California, New York, Florida, Texas and the like have much less of a vote than those in Wyoming, Vermont, Montana, Alaska and the like.

Fact is that a Wyoming vote is MUCH more powerful than a CA vote. This is inherently unfair and anti-democratic,

But the United States is not a democracy but a representative federal republic with the federal aspect of it being why WY has equal footing as CA. It prevents big states like IL, NY, CA, TX and FL totally dominating the country.

[Docere]

Hillary Clinton piled up "wasted votes" in California and the fact that she has 2 million more votes than Trump but lost is outrageous. On the other hand, the Dems were foolish to think their "firewall" included Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin and that "demographics is destiny." The firewall is basically New England, the BosWash corridor, Illinois and the West Coast.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Docere

The firewall is basically New England, the BosWash corridor, Illinois and the West Coast.

don't forget about new mexico and colorado, they were somewhat safe for hillary (8.2% & 4.9% respectively). but perhaps single digit wins aren't enough to count as "firewall" territory.

i used to think that minnesota was solidly part of the blue fire wall as well, but hillary only barely squeaked out a win there (1.5%). that was truly surprising to me.

illinois is now the only non-coastal state that's in super-safe landslide blue territory (hillary won IL by 16%). illinois is also the only non-coastal state where basically all of the people live in one big giant metro area. no other interior state has the urban/rural population size imbalance that illinois has.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i used to think that minnesota was solidly part of the blue fire wall as well, but hillary only barely squeaked out a win there (1.5%). that was truly surprising to me.

Minnesota has had by far the longest blue state streak of all, which was true even before Trump managed broke the longer-than-Illinois' blue streak of your northern neighbor Wisconsin.

(Wisconsin, unlike Illinois, never voted for a Bush.)

However, it seems clear that MN's crown is only due to the chance of having been Walter Mondale's home state in Reagan's landslide reelection.

On the other hand, DC is the one true blue stronghold, having voted Dem continuously ever since it started to have electoral votes in 1964! That's the longest streak of all (I believe Utah is 2nd.)

[Docere]

Until 1992, the affluent suburban vote was reliably Republican. That's why states like Illinois, New Jersey and Maryland used to be competitive territory for the GOP.

Hillary Clinton tried to appeal to the "upstanding Republican" vote in the suburbs. Problem is that vote has been decline since 1992 (beginning with Bill Clinton and the DLC moving the party in a more business-friendly direction, plus the GOP being increasingly dominated by rightwing populism and the religious right) so a lot of the vote had already defected long ago.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Crawford

But not the same as voters in other states. Voters in California, New York, Florida, Texas and the like have much less of a vote than those in Wyoming, Vermont, Montana, Alaska and the like.

Fact is that a Wyoming vote is MUCH more powerful than a CA vote. This is inherently unfair and anti-democratic,


Supporting democracy and the will of the people has nothing to do with supporting succession.

And if CA seceded (which will never happen) the ironic thing would be that it would be closer to American ideals than the rest of the country. It would be the "real" U.S., with far more direct democracy.

America wasn't set up as a direct democracy. We are an representational government. So no, California would be less american

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by memph

I wonder how many people in non-swing states don't bother voting because their vote doesn't count as much.

Swing states do tend to have higher turnout, but it's not a one-to-one correlation.