Anonymous #1 1d

Wait until you find out that you can win the electoral vote without winning the popular vote. Popular vote would require national campaigning. For every person you don’t get the other side could get. You want EVERYONE

1

Anonymous OP 1d

So candidates would focus on the most densely populated areas as opposed to a small town in a small state that, on a national scale, has practically no influence as opposed to just on a state level fighting for its electoral votes

0

Anonymous #1 23h

Only 80% of the country lives in major cities. If two candidates went head to head they would each have to secure half of EVERYONE ELSE to win. That 20% is still a lot of people.

5

Anonymous OP 23h

“Only”

0

Anonymous #1 23h

Please never run for president… the math isn’t that hard bro.

1

Anonymous OP 23h

I think the 20% number is also under what it actually is bc people use a broad definition for urban.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 23h

I used a statistic of percentage of people who live in major cities

1

Anonymous OP 23h

“Approximately 80.0% to 83% of Americans live in areas classified as urban (which includes densely populated suburbs and smaller metropolitan towns)” according to the census

1

Anonymous OP 23h

I believe the census is pretty liberal with what it defines as urban.

1

Anonymous #1 23h

If i ran against you, you said “fuck them non metropolitan areas” i would effectively get a 20% head start on you. Obviously you have people voting party lines so lets bring that down to 15%. I now only need 42.5% of the remaining population to vote for me whereas you still need 57.5%

1

Anonymous blue__wave 23h

Either way the math doesn’t lie 🤷🏼‍♂️

1

Anonymous OP 23h

No you’re right, I’m just saying you’re probably more right than you know. Also this isn’t considering who’s likely to vote or who’s eligible to vote. I’m guessing rural areas also may have an advantage in those areas.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 23h

Oh gotcha, yeah i was considering old people when i skewed the 20% to 15%

4