New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Portland, Seattle, and San Fransisco should not be deciding anything for their states. I don't know why popular vote is allowed beyond a county level.
I mean fuck, look at what happened in PA. The vast majority of the state was red and yet it didn't matter. As it is now, cities are feudal castles and rural areas are peasant villages, and we all know who decides what in that situation.
And probably Arizona (arguably) and Washington State, too…
In Australia, this is the same…
Outside the capitals, votes for Labor are fairly rare (excluding rusted-on working class areas. Pittsburgh, I suppose, as a US example. Or any “rust belt” city), yet because inner cities vote Labor, Labor wins, both federally and state…
However the suburbs here are sort of the inverse of the US…
Urban decay? Yes. High “black”populations in the inner city? Yes. But crime and dysfunction, and in particular poverty, is largely concentrated in outer suburbia.
Families live in the outer suburbs. Single, young people, and the rich, live in inner cities/suburbs…
Thus, on every electoral map here, you have a central “bullseye” of Labor or Greens (usually it’s the Greens, now), surrounded by Labor inner suburbs, surrounded by a sea of Liberal/National outer suburban and rural areas… The cities are like “bullet wounds”, was the analogy I read recently…
Thus, oddly, the demographics are the reverse of in the US, yet the political result of what part of the city ends up voting for whom, ends up the same, lol…
New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Portland, Seattle, and San Fransisco should not be deciding anything for their states. I don't know why popular vote is allowed beyond a county level.
I mean fuck, look at what happened in PA. The vast majority of the state was red and yet it didn't matter. As it is now, cities are feudal castles and rural areas are peasant villages, and we all know who decides what in that situation.
I think that applies to Georgia, too, no?
And probably Arizona (arguably) and Washington State, too…
In Australia, this is the same…
Outside the capitals, votes for Labor are fairly rare (excluding rusted-on working class areas. Pittsburgh, I suppose, as a US example. Or any “rust belt” city), yet because inner cities vote Labor, Labor wins, both federally and state…
However the suburbs here are sort of the inverse of the US…
Urban decay? Yes. High “black”populations in the inner city? Yes. But crime and dysfunction, and in particular poverty, is largely concentrated in outer suburbia.
Families live in the outer suburbs. Single, young people, and the rich, live in inner cities/suburbs…
Thus, on every electoral map here, you have a central “bullseye” of Labor or Greens (usually it’s the Greens, now), surrounded by Labor inner suburbs, surrounded by a sea of Liberal/National outer suburban and rural areas… The cities are like “bullet wounds”, was the analogy I read recently…
Thus, oddly, the demographics are the reverse of in the US, yet the political result of what part of the city ends up voting for whom, ends up the same, lol…
That’s what I meant, though.
Working class “rust belt” equivalent that always votes left. That was my point.
In Australia, that’s Geelong, Wollongong, Newcastle. In the US, I’m thinking Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Detroit, etc.
Same sort of deal with the suburbs here. Sort of.
We need an electoral college for deciding things at the state level, cities have more power than they should.