Jump to content

The extremes of population density for Dummies and why the Electoral college should go


Recommended Posts

 

These Powerful Maps Show the Extremes of U.S. Population Density 
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/maps-extremes-us-population-density/ 

America’s 328 million people are spread across a huge amount of territory, but the population density of various regions is far from equal. 

It’s no secret that cities like New York have a vastly different population density than, say, a rural county in North Dakota. Even so, this interactive map by Ben Blatt of Slate helps visualize the stark contrast between urban and rural densities in a way that might intrigue you. 

How many counties does it take to equal the population of these large urban areas? Let’s find out.



New York City’s Rural Equivalent 
New York City became the largest city in the U.S. back in 1781 and has long been the country’s most densely packed urban center. Today, 1 in every 38 people living in the United States resides in The Big Apple. 
new-york-city-population-density-equivalent-map-1.png

Los Angeles County’s Rural Equivalent 
los-angeles-county-population-density-equivalent-map-1.png

Chicago’s Rural Equivalent 
chicago-population-density-equivalent-map.png

 

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/maps-extremes-us-population-density/

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The population disparity in 1790, at the first census, was about 10:1. Massachusetts and Virginia had about 110,000 each, Delaware only 11,000. So the EC had a 3 to 1 disparity in favor of Delaware and a few other states. One wonders why the founders thought this was reasonable?

An advantage to Delaware in today's politics would have seen an immediate amendment to the EC by the MAGA crowd.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

One acre, one vote. How's that working out for you?

The founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom, said it must be so. Fundamental truths like their constitution shall be taken literally and be forever unchanged. Ummm...except for storming the Capitol for an insurrection...

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Borracho said:

The population disparity in 1790, at the first census, was about 10:1. Massachusetts and Virginia had about 110,000 each, Delaware only 11,000. So the EC had a 3 to 1 disparity in favor of Delaware and a few other states. One wonders why the founders thought this was reasonable?

An advantage to Delaware in today's politics would have seen an immediate amendment to the EC by the MAGA crowd.

From what I could understand after reading up on it following the Trump win with a 3 million vote deficit, the electoral college was arranged to assure the smaller colonies wouldn't be overwhelmed by the larger colonies.  It was the only way the smaller colonies would ratify things.  It probably isn't going to change as long as it is in place.  Too much power in the hands of too few people.  The only hope would be more states adopt the Maine / Nebraska model which apportions electoral votes.  This latest round of legislation in the republican controlled states (the majority of the states but the minority of population) indicates they are going the other way though in efforts to consolidate and retain power.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah.....'Cuz the Blue People are the ones I want 'governing' me.

 

Uhm......no, think I'll pass on that one, Boss (when at all possible). Those are the same people who have already ruined almost every city they've run in the past 50 years....and have made literally 7th World shit holes and pretty much unliveable. Trust me, this is one of those instances where less-is-more actually works.

Jfc.....

Screenshot_2020-03-19-14-27-37.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, El Mariachi said:

Yeah.....'Cuz the Blue People are the ones I want 'governing' me.

 

Don't you live in Mexico? They elected a socialist.  And his party is know for its stance of Humanism and everything you hate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Borracho said:

The founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom, said it must be so. Fundamental truths like their constitution shall be taken literally and be forever unchanged. Ummm...except for storming the Capitol for an insurrection...

Oh yes, some broken windows are the end of the republic. Meanwhile, in DC, we see the blackshirts that the PA echo chamber cheers on doing more of their "mostly peaceful" rioting. I guess the NG have been kept there for the non-existant "right wing" rioting, since they are not in sight of any of the "leftists gone wild".

In any event, if you want to change the Constitution - there is a process. Feel free to follow it.

29 minutes ago, bridhb said:

This latest round of legislation in the republican controlled states (the majority of the states but the minority of population) indicates they are going the other way though in efforts to consolidate and retain power.

Kind of like those (D)s in the house doing, you know, the same thing. Imagine that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Clove Hitch said:
26 minutes ago, El Mariachi said:

Yeah.....'Cuz the Blue People are the ones I want 'governing' me.

 

Don't you live in Mexico? They elected a socialist.  And his party is know for its stance of Humanism and everything you hate. 

Oops... there you go, with those goddam facts n' shit

Next you'll be pointing out the higher life expectancy, higher real estate value, higher average standard of living, etc etc, of all those "ruined" blue places. You must be wunna them smarty-pants libby-rull fukkers!

Rush Limbaugh threatened to move to Costa Rica if Republicans didn't sweep the next election. They didn't, he didn't either. Red-state dumbfucks, by nature, cannot actually learn from their mistakes. It's kind of a shame.

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Borracho said:

The founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom, said it must be so. Fundamental truths like their constitution shall be taken literally and be forever unchanged. Ummm...except for storming the Capitol for an insurrection...

One thing for sure, is the Founders never expected their plan to go to hell the way it has, and the way they left us to change it, makes change all but impossible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Clove Hitch said:

Don't you live in Mexico? They elected a socialist.  And his party is know for its stance of Humanism and everything you hate. 

You have NO idea how much more freedoms we have in Mexico....compared to the rules, regs & taxes on the other side of the Tortilla Curtain. Especially in Kalifornia. Living here is like being the first person to discover Hawaii....whereas living on the other side of the border....is like living with 58 militant lesbian German prison guards in a fuking phone booth....guarded by 400 lb. starving Dobermans.

 

HUGE difference. And at 64 years old? I don't need any 'governing'----you can save that shit for the candy-assed Americans who wouldn't last three hours alone in a city park.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, El Mariachi said:

You have NO idea how much more freedoms we have in Mexico....compared to the rules, regs & taxes on the other side of the Tortilla Curtain. Especially in Kalifornia. Living here is like being the first person to discover Hawaii....whereas living on the other side of the border....is like living with 58 militant lesbian German prison guards in a fuking phone booth....guarded by 400 lb. starving Dobermans.

 

HUGE difference. And at 64 years old? I don't need any 'governing'----you can save that shit for the candy-assed Americans who wouldn't last three hours alone in a city park.....

So you're saying you're enjoying the Socialism there and that they are doing it well? That sounds like what you are saying

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Clove Hitch said:

So you're saying you're enjoying the Socialism there and that they are doing it well? That sounds like what you are saying

All I do is spend my money here. And there's not a single thing that I get in return that even HINTS of Socialism. So I don't know where the fuk you're getting you incorrect ideas from....but they're wrong. Once again.....

 

Jfc but some of you here are the exact opposite of good wine.....you just get stupider by the year.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Clove Hitch said:

So you're saying you're enjoying the Socialism there and that they are doing it well? That sounds like what you are saying

Yup. Spot on. @El Mariachias a typical RWNJ. Enjoying all the fruits of a liberal society, social democracy even, while doing everything possible to discourage anyone else from seeking the same.

1 minute ago, El Mariachi said:

All I do is spend my money here. And there's not a single thing that I get in return that even HINTS of Socialism.

Haha. Delusion. Aren't you there exactly because the local liberal culture created the very things you enjoy there?  Or have you run from the U.S. Marshal?

Did I say delusion? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Borracho said:

Yup. Spot on. @El Mariachias a typical RWNJ. Enjoying all the fruits of a liberal society, social democracy even, while doing everything possible to discourage anyone else from seeking the same.

Haha. Delusion. Aren't you there exactly because the local liberal culture created the very things you enjoy there?  Or have you run from the U.S. Marshal?

Did I say delusion? 

El Mariachi Socialista, LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wannabe county Wyoming has two Senators and a carpetbagger Critter. One of their Senators is a carpetbagger as well as their governor and secretary of state. They get 3 electoral college votes for their population of 578,759. Yeah, that's pretty dumb.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ishmael said:

One acre, one vote. How's that working out for you?

Canada is not as bad as the US but still pretty uneven. Prince Edward Island with a population of 156,000 is guaranteed four MPs. The city of Oshawa where I live, has basically the same population (slightly more in fact) and has one MP.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, El Mariachi said:

Yeah.....'Cuz the Blue People are the ones I want 'governing' me.

 

Uhm......no, think I'll pass on that one, Boss (when at all possible). Those are the same people who have already ruined almost every city they've run in the past 50 years....and have made literally 7th World shit holes and pretty much unliveable. Trust me, this is one of those instances where less-is-more actually works.

Jfc.....

Screenshot_2020-03-19-14-27-37.png

Why does this mexican keep telling Americans what they should think? EM, can you tells us which areas have higher property values, higher levels of education, longer life expectancy, better dental care and better restaurants? I will give you one clue, blue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

Canada is not as bad as the US but still pretty uneven. Prince Edward Island with a population of 156,000 is guaranteed four MPs. The city of Oshawa where I live, has basically the same population (slightly more in fact) and has one MP.

Yes, we're screwed up a bit. You can see the bargains that were made.

 

Allocation of Seats in the House of Commons

To take effect when the representation order comes into force

Province/ Territory Population estimate ÷ Electoral quotient = Initial seat allocation + Senatorial clause + Grandfather clause + Representation rule = Total seats
British Columbia 4,573,321 111,166 42 - - - 42
Alberta 3,779,353 34 - - - 34
Saskatchewan 1,057,884 10 - 4 - 14
Manitoba 1,250,574 12 - 2 - 14
Ontario 13,372,996 121 - - - 121
Quebec 7,979,663 72 - 3 3 78
New Brunswick 755,455 7 3 - - 10
Nova Scotia 945,437 9 1 1 - 11
Prince Edward Island 145,855 2 2 - - 4
Newfoundland and Labrador 510,578 5 1 1 - 7
Yukon 34,666 n/a 1
Northwest Territories 43,675 n/a 1
Nunavut 33,322 n/a 1
Total 34,482,779   338
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Wannabe county Wyoming has two Senators and a carpetbagger Critter. One of their Senators is a carpetbagger as well as their governor and secretary of state. They get 3 electoral college votes for their population of 578,759. Yeah, that's pretty dumb.

Yeah you said that last time. And when I asked you what proposal you had to address/rectify this, you waffled, dragged a bunch of red herrings and basically went to water.

Basically your response could be summed up by the saying "This is SOOOOOO unfair!!!!!"

But no suggestions to fix anything.

Just like a 4 year old.

As someone up thread said, you've got a process for Constitutional amendments. Frame one and put it forward. Else suck it up.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ishmael said:

Yes, we're screwed up a bit. You can see the bargains that were made.

 

Allocation of Seats in the House of Commons

To take effect when the representation order comes into force

Province/ Territory Population estimate ÷ Electoral quotient = Initial seat allocation + Senatorial clause + Grandfather clause + Representation rule = Total seats
British Columbia 4,573,321 111,166 42 - - - 42
Alberta 3,779,353 34 - - - 34
Saskatchewan 1,057,884 10 - 4 - 14
Manitoba 1,250,574 12 - 2 - 14
Ontario 13,372,996 121 - - - 121
Quebec 7,979,663 72 - 3 3 78
New Brunswick 755,455 7 3 - - 10
Nova Scotia 945,437 9 1 1 - 11
Prince Edward Island 145,855 2 2 - - 4
Newfoundland and Labrador 510,578 5 1 1 - 7
Yukon 34,666 n/a 1
Northwest Territories 43,675 n/a 1
Nunavut 33,322 n/a 1
Total 34,482,779   338

I don't know, and can't be bothered to look it up, but I wonder if the major renovation of the House of Commons chamber will allow for significantly more MPs. In recent years in an attempt to improve representation in growing provinces additional seats have been added in the House but it was pretty much full before. I guess the other way to do it is not to have each MP with an assigned seat. I think that is what is done in the UK.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, El Mariachi said:

And there's not a single thing that I get in return that even HINTS of Socialism

Ever go to a government hospital in Mexico or do you only frequent the private ones?

Where do you get your drinking water? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zonker said:

Ever go to a government hospital in Mexico or do you only frequent the private ones?

Where do you get your drinking water? 

He recirculates. Occasional dispersions of non-alcohol byproducts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

I don't know, and can't be bothered to look it up, but I wonder if the major renovation of the House of Commons chamber will allow for significantly more MPs. In recent years in an attempt to improve representation in growing provinces additional seats have been added in the House but it was pretty much full before. I guess the other way to do it is not to have each MP with an assigned seat. I think that is what is done in the UK.

As long as they do it daily in the HOC, every day they have to search for their seat, and it's hidden in different places. It's not productive, but it would keep them from fucking it up too much before the bell sounds and they have to start drinking seriously.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

Canada is not as bad as the US but still pretty uneven. Prince Edward Island with a population of 156,000 is guaranteed four MPs. The city of Oshawa where I live, has basically the same population (slightly more in fact) and has one MP.

PEI got the confederation bridge and the assholes in Ottawa won't even contribute to the ferries here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zonker said:
11 hours ago, El Mariachi said:

And there's not a single thing that I get in return that even HINTS of Socialism

Ever go to a government hospital in Mexico or do you only frequent the private ones?

Where do you get your drinking water? 

El Moran is one of those ruggedly independent types who regard it as socialism only when someone else benefits from it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

Canada is not as bad as the US but still pretty uneven. Prince Edward Island with a population of 156,000 is guaranteed four MPs. The city of Oshawa where I live, has basically the same population (slightly more in fact) and has one MP.

No, Canada is not as bad as the US. Wannabe county Wyoming has a population of 578,759 and gets 2 Senators. Fifth largest economy in the world California has a population of 40 million and gets 2 Senators. It's pretty dumb.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Zonker said:

Ever go to a government hospital in Mexico or do you only frequent the private ones?

Where do you get your drinking water? 

1). Never have in 55 years.

2). Mexico doesn't have any public 'drinking water'.....so we buy it from private entities.

 

3). Got any more stupid fuking questions about stupid shit that you know absolutely jack shit about....you stupid fuk?.....:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a problem here in that allocation of congressional districts is determined by residence and qualification for voting is determined by citizenship.

What happens then that a large number of immigrants (legal and otherwise) end up getting a representative for their district but don't get to vote.

This is one of the reasons that restricting the House of Representatives to 435 members is so counter to a republic.  While this emphasizes states the circles are a better indication of why we really need ten times as many representatives and the majority (if not all) should remain in their home district where the voters can get to them easier than the lobbyists and party loyalists.

 

immigrants location.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Olsonist said:

No, Canada is not as bad as the US. Wannabe county Wyoming has a population of 578,759 and gets 2 Senators. Fifth largest economy in the world California has a population of 40 million and gets 2 Senators. It's pretty dumb.

Every state gets two senators.  That makes the states equal.  Didn't they teach you that in school?

BTW, There are seven states that have only one representative.  Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Delaware.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Every state gets two senators.  That makes the states equal.  Didn't they teach you that in school?

BTW, There are seven states that have only one representative.  Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Delaware.

Congress, Senate ... bah, what's the difference, by jiggity?

And for all those population maps, we could take things the other direction ... those populations of NYC, Chicago, L.A., they suck up resources that it takes enormous areas to produce. There isn't a lot of population density in Nebraska, but the density of corn, wheat and meat production in Nebraska allows Chicago, L.A. and NYC to be highly concentrated sources of population and power.

The idea of shit-canning the electoral college based on population non-homogeneity is silly. It's the process of pretending that these huge population centers don't critically rely on the low population regions. Fucking nonsense, but nonsense is populism, and populism seems to the be the flavor of the day.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In 1789, 15% of the U.S. population was urban and 85% was rural.

As of today, about 85% of the U.S. population is urban and 15% rural.

 

And the Electoral College was 100% about preserving slavery and giving a sop to slave states to join the union. The 3/5ths compromise...google it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

In 1789, 15% of the U.S. population was urban and 85% was rural.

As of today, about 85% of the U.S. population is urban and 15% rural.

 

And the Electoral College was 100% about preserving slavery and giving a sop to slave states to join the union. The 3/5ths compromise...google it.

Slavery is the gift that keeps on giving :rolleyes:

Europe had the option to keep their slave lords 3,000 miles away, us not so much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

In 1789, 15% of the U.S. population was urban and 85% was rural.

As of today, about 85% of the U.S. population is urban and 15% rural.

 

And the Electoral College was 100% about preserving slavery and giving a sop to slave states to join the union. The 3/5ths compromise...google it.

 So they shouldn't have been counted as human at all?  No union formed and slavery left uncontested?

It was indeed a compromise and eventually led to those slaves being freed.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Slavery is the gift that keeps on giving :rolleyes:

Europe had the option to keep their slave lords 3,000 miles away, us not so much.

Yep, the sanctimonious do not like to recall that the colonists were Europeans when slavery was instituted.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

In 1789, 15% of the U.S. population was urban and 85% was rural.

As of today, about 85% of the U.S. population is urban and 15% rural.

 

And the Electoral College was 100% about preserving slavery and giving a sop to slave states to join the union. The 3/5ths compromise...google it.

And? Do you have a point in that sixth-grade civics history lesson?

The Electoral College is one of the safeguards against the U.S.A. moving from our current tenuous Fifty States with a National Government, to a National Government with some quirky history in Fifty States.

And the fact that the people of American Samoa, Guam, Saipan, Puerto Rico, Washington D.C., U.S. Virgin Islands, Tinnian and the Marianas do not have U.S. State Citizenship, is a contemporary day relic of racism that should make every American hang his or her head in shame. We don't seem to value our collection of Fifty States any longer, we're enraptured by the antics of our national celebrities. And this it seems, is by design. We can't move to world government until we first more the USA to national government.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, mikewof said:

And for all those population maps, we could take things the other direction ... those populations of NYC, Chicago, L.A., they suck up resources that it takes enormous areas to produce.

This is really major BS - the "population centers" heavily subsidize rural areas. 

You have it exactly backwards. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

This is really major BS - the "population centers" heavily subsidize rural areas. 

You have it exactly backwards. 

You are confused.

You think that just because a densely populated urban area contributes more to Federal coffers than they extract, and just because a lightly populated rural area extracts more from Federal coffers than they contribute, that the dense urban areas can survive happily without the sparse rural areas.

The reality of course, is that the breakfast you eat, the energy that moves you around, the steel, methane and elements that allow you to live like a comparative Twentieth Century Monarch (aka "Supreme Highness"), these things can rarely be delivered to your gaping maw without those low-density, often poverty-encrusted rural areas.

On 2/15/2021 at 10:51 AM, AJ Oliver said:

You need not call me "professor".  It's usually Your Supreme Highness 

You're apparently a bit too much of a city slicker to understand how things work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

This is really major BS - the "population centers" heavily subsidize rural areas. 

You have it exactly backwards. 

That's because your measure is dollars not value.

McDonalds could make a major impact on GDP.  In 2020, the sold 2.36 billion burgers.  Just raise the  price of each by $2 and you would increase GDP by 4.72 billion dollars without not actually adding one more product or service.

The fact that you have to pay high prices in cities to cover all the processing and delivery to support the city doesn't increase their value.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's not a single solitary fuking McDonald's burger sold world-wide that's worth more than .89 cents. 

And that's pushing it....

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2021 at 12:46 PM, El Mariachi said:

You have NO idea how much more freedoms we have in Mexico....

How are you enjoying the gun laws in Mexico, dumb ass?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, El Mariachi said:

There's not a single solitary fuking McDonald's burger sold world-wide that's worth more than .89 cents. 

And that's pushing it....

The free market disagrees with your assertion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2021 at 7:49 AM, Saorsa said:

Yep, the sanctimonious do not like to recall that the colonists were Europeans when slavery was instituted.

This in no way excuses what we did, if you read contemporary accounts of 1770s major figures in the Revolutionary War they knew full well that slavery was an evil cancer that endangered the newly formed country. They were up against two hard choices, one was broad in scope and one personal. There would have been no successful revolution if they even hinted at being anti-slavery, one of the driving forces of the revolution was fear that the British government would abolish slavery. The other issue was no matter how eloquent their anti-slavery musings were, they were not about to follow through and free their slaves. There was just too much money at stake :rolleyes:

Back to what you wrote, their was British slavery in North America longer than there was American slavery and France's slave lords were brutal to a degree that would have made a Nazi concentration camp guard feel right at home. Portugal more or less invented the commercial transatlantic slave trade and Spain didn't mind chewing through the native populations of Central and South America. No clean hands to be found.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's worth noting that Thomas Jefferson wrote about freeing his slaves, but could not afford to... George Washington's will directed that his slaves be freed, and it took years but Martha Washington actually did free them.

Of the other Founding Fathers, there were a few abolitionists and there were a few devout Presbyterians, it's worth remembering that the USA was founded and our government formed by men who would have cheerfully and enthusiastically fought each other to the death, if they hadn't recognized the need to fight King George III instead.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...