Submitted by Pecners t3_zuajkb in Washington
Comments
foreverhalcyon8 t1_j1i2f8r wrote
You’ll want to clean up ONP, unless this includes black bears too!
loquacious t1_j1iqh9s wrote
You definitely have a bunch of noise in your data representation, there are "buckets" all over Olympic National Park and that striping east of the Cascades isn't right, either.
grumbly t1_j1igxkm wrote
Oh nice! I saw your maps of Illinois and went looking to see if you generated a Washington one. Lo and behold here it is!
We talk about two half’s of the states all the time. Here it is in bold detail. Also really reinforces where all the economic activity and population is.
fundamentfarm t1_j1iue15 wrote
Is Farming considered 'economic activity?"
andthedevilissix t1_j1j6efa wrote
Kinda need people to make food tho, and then you need people to work providing services to the people who make food.
eyeoxe t1_j1igb3l wrote
Do you have one for the whole usa? Curious to see how it compares.
duckduckohno t1_j1i5wl3 wrote
There is some interesting vertical banding of populations east of the I-5 corridor, I wonder if this is an artifact or something else to explain the unusual distribution.
grumbly t1_j1ihcl1 wrote
It’s an artifact of the hexagonal bucketing.
-Chlorine-Addict- t1_j1ilu48 wrote
If that’s the case then why isn’t it present for the area between Moses Lake and Ritzville?
[deleted] t1_j1l50ve wrote
[deleted]
vanisaac t1_j1jhj57 wrote
You can also see it in the Olympics. It's gotta be something to do with the data for people living on federal lands.
TheGruntingGoat t1_j1l51g9 wrote
Could be this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkerboarding_(land)
WikiSummarizerBot t1_j1l528j wrote
>Checkerboarding refers to a situation where land ownership is intermingled between two or more owners, resulting in a checkerboard pattern. Checkerboarding is prevalent in the Western United States and Western Canada because of extensive use in railroad grants for western expansion, although it had its beginnings in the canal land grant era.
^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
vanisaac t1_j1l5883 wrote
It is very much not. There is basically no checkerboarding outside the foothills of the Cascades.
amaninseattle t1_j1ilwjt wrote
Interesting how it’s liberal only where most of the people are…
dimpletown t1_j1j6yjt wrote
People tend not to be "scared" of things if they're exposed to it often enough
Rough_Theme_5289 t1_j1iql14 wrote
It’s common knowledge once you head east in our state that it gets … a lot more maga ish….
riannaearl t1_j1j50y8 wrote
There's more decent people out east than you'd think. Not all of us are inbred maga dumb dumbs. Those ones are just loud. I wish they'd shut the hell up and crawl into a hole, and stop voting against their own interests so we can start making some forward progress. It's exhausting.
andthedevilissix t1_j1jh3fp wrote
You can't persuade people if you don't understand them, and you can't understand them if you engage in thought terminating cliches like mentally inserting "voting against their own interests" instead of trying to understand what those people regard as their interests.
intention-and-focus t1_j1k2wt2 wrote
The outcome will not be decided by persuading right wing voters to vote left.
it’s won by persuading non-voters to vote. That, and waiting for the youth to outnumber the old.
riannaearl t1_j1kc549 wrote
Exactly.
andthedevilissix t1_j1l0hfn wrote
A significant number of people who voted for Obama later voted for Trump.
Lots of Kemp voters also voted against Walker.
And, even if people vote for politicians you disagree with, if you dont' understand their reasoning or their perspective there's no possibility of any policy compromise and the whole thing just becomes a shittier version of team sports.
Phuzi3 t1_j1jf48h wrote
I always find that an interesting concept.
How does being against more taxation, government control and spending, equate to “voting against their own interests”?
Gekokapowco t1_j1lg3q4 wrote
When problems that could be resolved by government spending come to pass, it's pretty embarrassing.
And it doesn't matter if your taxes are low if you work a brutal, unsafe labor job for pennies.
And the fact that there isn't a modern issue today that isn't caused or exacerbated by republicans and their donors. Which seems absurd to say but it's true.
Phuzi3 t1_j1pbn8c wrote
Infrastructure, like roads, bridges, highways and the like, are about the only places I’ve seen government dollars go to somewhat good use.
Having worked an unsafe, brutal, low wage labor job…yeah, I could have done much more with what money I had if taxes were lower. If sales and gas tax was lower, if property taxes were lower, so those increases weren’t passed on to the tenant. I actually kind of enjoyed that job, but I work a job I rather despise now, despite making over 4x the hourly rate with a union to, supposedly, have my back, and I took it because I couldn’t afford $10 an hour anymore.
Conservatives believe the individual makes their way. Leftists believe the government provides the way. There can be some overlap in how policy is applied, sure, but the worldview between the two camps is so vastly different, this hardly happens any longer.
cheekabowwow t1_j1lrfuo wrote
Because Reddit is an echo chamber and doesn’t represent the real world.
iFangy t1_j1q1y0r wrote
I don’t get why “voting against their interests” is supposed to be such a good point anyway. I don’t vote by interests, I vote by ideology. Probably the case for most people.
andthedevilissix t1_j1j91qj wrote
That's not really true.
I saw more trump 2020 signs in Bremerton and Kent than I do in Spokane.
idiot206 t1_j1l794s wrote
Spokane is larger than Bremerton and Kent, it’s the one exception in Eastern WA.
Generalbuttnaked69 t1_j1jxhyd wrote
Large swaths of western Washington are as red as eastern Washington, there’s a reason the Republican Party HQ is in Bellevue as opposed to somewhere over here.
As a life long eastern Washington democrat we just don’t matter much either way.
adescuentechable t1_j1jx088 wrote
That's what county-level maps make it look like, but they're somewhat deceiving.
If you look at the precinct level: https://i.imgur.com/aArMaYf.jpg
The Olympic Peninsula and Northcentral WA are both very sparsely populated and they have some big Democratic precincts. Meanwhile, Lewis County is part of the I-5 corridor, and it's one of the most Republican areas in the whole state.
Lost_Sasquatch t1_j1iop7z wrote
It is kinda nutty that we have the electoral college to account for this at scale, but at the state level we're just like "yeah, it's fine if 5-10% of the landmass decides everything for the rest of it".
Regardless of your political stance, I think we can all agree that it's an issue of representation that drives the cultural divide further.
Edit: This downvote ratio is literally proving my point, we need systems in place to curb this kind of "oppression is fine when my team has the votes" bullshit. It's clear that a majority of people in WA do not want representative governance, they want their own preferred brand of tyranny.
mr_jim_lahey t1_j1ipd26 wrote
Why should "landmass" (aka landowners) have disproportionately more say than everyone else in a democratic system?
andthedevilissix t1_j1j628v wrote
In terms of the EC (and the Senate), its' because the US is a Republic, and state's participation in said Republic is in part based on the promise that they won't just be steamrolled by larger population states.
To put this another way, the EU would have a very difficult time getting low pop or small countries to join if they weren't assured of some ability to advance their interests even if those interests were not shared by the high pop or large countries.
mr_jim_lahey t1_j1jd6x3 wrote
Yes, that is why the system is the way it is, and it's dumb and bad
andthedevilissix t1_j1jg2ck wrote
Imagine a future where the major population areas are in favor of a populist Trump-style government and we had decided that senate positions should be population-based like the house. WA has remained pretty liberal, but because WA has a low population compared to Trumpist CA and NY (and the rest of the east coast), WA and other liberal states essentially have no say nationally. Do you think the population of WA would benefit from such an arrangement?
Things can change rapidly, it may seem far fetched to imagine a future where a populist rightwing government becomes wildly popular in the big cities - but I'm sure that many people living in the Weimar Republic also thought it'd be pretty far fetched.
mr_jim_lahey t1_j1k02bh wrote
I like how you ask us to hypothetically imagine a thing that already happened except at least in your hypothetical the president would have won the popular vote instead of losing it by 8 million
andthedevilissix t1_j1k910m wrote
Truly think about it a bit more, though. The president doesn't make the laws which is why I'm concentrating on senate representation. Having each state with 2 senators makes sure that states can look out for their own interests rather than be subsumed by larger states. If the very large states like California and NY etc all became very Trumpian, and we had a Senate that was population-based, would you feel like Washington had much input?
This is important because people in Washington have different needs, priorities, and concerns than people in New Mexico...right down to natural resource management.
It may help to think of US states the same way that you'd think of individual EU countries.
mr_jim_lahey t1_j1kphij wrote
The problem you're talking about already exists, we live in a tyranny of the minority of Republican states' population. You seem to be oblivious to this.
idiot206 t1_j1l7hkz wrote
> its’ because the US is a Republic
The US would still be a Republic without the EC. Most countries are some form of a Republic. Washington State itself is also a Republic.
Lost_Sasquatch t1_j1irzdh wrote
They shouldn't, they should have more local autonomy.
I was simply pointing out that the issue of rural disenfranchisement was clearly acknowledged on a federal scale but not a state level.
take_my_waking_slow t1_j1it1th wrote
Rural disenfranchisement?! That is the opposite of what the electoral college and US senate do.
Lost_Sasquatch t1_j1iv3vv wrote
Thats... literally my point.
It was acknowledged as an issue and addressed by federal and state legislature while remaining largely ignored with regard to ballot measures combined with state preemption.
mr_jim_lahey t1_j1j7y81 wrote
Lol, rural areas in Washington already openly flaunt that they don't enforce state laws while also being massively subsidized by King County. If anything they have too much autonomy.
andthedevilissix t1_j1j8tk1 wrote
Which laws would you like to see enforced in rural areas that are not being enforced in rural areas?
chrislongman t1_j1jbgrn wrote
Would be great if we could start with illegal wells.
andthedevilissix t1_j1jc53e wrote
Can you be more specific?
Lost_Sasquatch t1_j1jcvgy wrote
He's referring to people getting wells drilled on their property without getting a permit/water rights.
andthedevilissix t1_j1jf5xx wrote
Oddly specific thing to be angry about, where's the evidence that it's a major problem? Furthermore, where's the evidence that permitting violations are more common per capita in rural areas than metro areas?
Lost_Sasquatch t1_j1jim1u wrote
It is oddly specific. Especially odd considering it's individuals doing it, not exactly an institutional rejection of higher authority, which is what he was implying before.
invno1 t1_j1jc20v wrote
I believe most recently they're referring to state gun laws.
mr_jim_lahey t1_j1jdfh0 wrote
They know that are and are trying to bait people into an irrelevant gun debate
mr_jim_lahey t1_j1jd1g3 wrote
Are my personal feelings about specific laws relevant to determining whether open flaunting of non-enforcement demonstrates autonomy?
bernyzilla t1_j1jglcw wrote
But why should the status of "living in a rural area" allow one to get more votes, at any level?
Why is landmass the one area where we allow this?
Women are disproportionately represented in government, so are black people, young people, etc. Should they get extra votes?
If living in Wyoming gets one 3 votes to every .8 California vote, why doesn't being from Laos get you 4.5 votes? That underrepresentation certainly drives the culture divide between white America and Asian America.
The only way to do it is one vote for one person. The electoral college, gerrymandering, and any other scheme that allows one group to disproportionate voting power should be abolished.
Currently rural populations have disproportionate power in politics, and that has done nothing to resolve the cultural divide. If anything it is worse than ever. I would argue that if you want to try to get rid of the cultural divide we should bring back the Dennis doctrine intermediate, as currently falsehoods spoken in conservative media fuel the culture divide more than anything.
Lost_Sasquatch t1_j1jib8c wrote
> But why should the status of "living in a rural area" allow one to get more votes, at any level?
I never actually advocated for this. I just pointed out that it's clearly something that was thought about on some levels and not others.
The point is that systems should be set up in a manner where nobody is disenfranchised. People should have a say in the rules being applied to them.
Personally, I think the solution is reducing the scope of federal and state power in favor of regional autonomy.
> as currently falsehoods spoken in conservative media fuel the culture divide more than anything
Lmao, it's not just conservative media man. They are all propaganda machines, right and left.
bernyzilla t1_j1jrk38 wrote
Would it regional autonomy you advocate for allow a particular region to ban gay marriage? Reinstate Jim Crow?
>I never actually advocated for this. I just pointed out that it's clearly something that was thought about on some levels and not others.
That is correct. The solution is to give each person an equal say in all levels of politics. One person one vote, regardless of who you are or where you live.
>Lmao, it's not just conservative media man. They are all propaganda machines, right and left.
I guess you haven't argument that all media is pro corporate. But let's not pretend that MSNBC has the same effect on the left that Fox News has on the right. And either way if they're both propaganda machines, then bring back the fairness doctrine with solve the issue anyway. Would you support that?
Lost_Sasquatch t1_j1jvm2w wrote
>Would it regional autonomy you advocate for allow a particular region to ban gay marriage? Reinstate Jim Crow?
Nobody anywhere should be able to deprive people of their liberties, but we already have that going on right now so I'm not sure what your point is. Institutional discrimination is widespread already.
> That is correct. The solution is to give each person an equal say in all levels of politics. One person one vote, regardless of who you are or where you live.
You're stuck on my electoral college comparison, my point is that people living 200 miles from me, with a different culture, wants, and needs should not have the level of influence over my life that they currently do. Spreading the blame doesn't make totalitarianism less repugnant.
> But let's not pretend that MSNBC has the same effect on the left that Fox News has on the right.
That's just a matter of ratings, not content. Conservatives watch more Fox News than leftists watch the entirety of all left wing mainstream media combined.
> And either way if they're both propaganda machines, then bring back the fairness doctrine with solve the issue anyway. Would you support that?
I'm not a fan of censorship. If power was less concentrated at the top they wouldn't be able to whip the mob into a frenzy like they do. Very few issues would be relevant to the entire nation and there would be much less incentive and demand for 24/7 rage porn on mainstream media to influence high profile political issues/campaigns.
bernyzilla t1_j1kg5av wrote
I still don't agree that one side advocating for fascism and the other for universal healthcare is the same thing. At all. Conservative media is a pox on our democracy. Fox news is only good at it because propaganda is easy when you are able to lie continuously. There's a middle ground between censorship and not giving a platform to hate speech that encourages violence, or at the very least regulating what is able to be called "news"
Fine let's leave the electoral college behind for now. Hopefully you can agree it is an outdated institution. A thousand years ago 200 miles was a long way, and people can have a very different culture too much away. Fast transportation and instant communication have changed that. Things aren't really that different across the country, at least not more different than say racial and religious differences between people that could live next door to each other.
But I'm willing to hear you out, You've been some what clear about what you don't like. What do you advocate for?
andthedevilissix t1_j1jil0c wrote
The reason that the Senate is 2 for every state instead of by population is because the USA was formed as an alliance between independent states who didn't want to give up their autonomy and didn't want to empower a central government.
Why would a small population state with lots of natural resources join the union if it meant they'd never have a say in anything as a state?
To think about it another way, imagine another reality where California and most of the north eastern states were full of people who thought Trump was awesome and senate seats were awarded via population just like the house, would a liberal WA benefit from being part of a union where WA would never have a meaningful say vs. the pro-Trump states? If no matter what the states with the most population could set the agenda for everyone else, like deciding to build a wall on WA's border with Canada and because WA has a small population compared to CA or NY we'd never be ablet o say "no"...wouldn't it feel pointless and shitty that people thousands of miles away from WA could steamroll the people who live here and do stuff in our state we didnt' like?
bernyzilla t1_j1jqxah wrote
Yes, a liberal Washington would still benefit greatly from being in the union. Mutual defense, disaster support, commerce, etc. Each day does get a say in the politics of the country as a whole, But that say should be based on population rather than land area. Land area is one of 100 arbitrary divisions that you could use to influence politics. The only fair way is each person gets one vote.
And if the majority of Americans were pro-Trump supporters, and they voted to build the wall between Washington and Canada, It would annoy me but I would be okay with it because that's how democracy works. Individual parts have to compromise for the greater whole. But I would only be okay with it if it was actually Democratic, If more people believed a certain way or voted that way then fine. I believe in democracy even when the majority doesn't agree with me.
How do you think black people feel being steamrolled by a plurality of white Americans? Women outnumber men in America, But men have a hundred times the political influence. How do you think women feel? Why does the only group that gets extra votes is rural people? It's an outdated arbitrary division and should be abolished.
And it's not like rural Life is even that different. When the county was founded, a factory worker from a city would be totally lost in the country. A rural farmer would equally be lost in the city. But most people in rural areas have jobs similar to people in urban areas. It's not like urban people are factory workers and raw people are farmers anymore. The number of independent farms and ranches has plummeted 40 years. Now people in the middle of nowhere work at the same restaurants and offices, eat at the same fast food chains, watch the same TV, drive the same cars, etc as people living in a city. It's an arbitrary distinction that should not be The basis of perverting democracy. Each individual should get one vote.
aeo1us t1_j1iuoza wrote
Eastern Washington on its own would be as piss poor as rural Idaho if it wasn't for the tech giants and Seattle in general.
Lost_Sasquatch t1_j1ivh5c wrote
I'm not sure how you think West side tech giants contribute to the East side economy.
Second, I never advocated for E. WA being it's own state.
aeo1us t1_j1izthl wrote
> “yeah, it’s fine if 5-10% of the landmass decides everything for the rest of it”.
You advocated for more agency with 5% of the tax base. Why should 95% of those who pay taxes be decided by the 5%?
You honestly don't see that the tax money rural areas flourish from is from the tech companies? You've been to Idaho right?
Lost_Sasquatch t1_j1j183n wrote
I pointed out that they have very little autonomy, at no point did I say they should be tyrants with total power.
I know this is the internet, but c'mon man, argue in better faith if you want an actual reply. You're not scoring any points like that.
aeo1us t1_j1jeaup wrote
You replied and my comments are upvoted. I don't see the issue here. You still haven't said if you've been to Idaho.
Lost_Sasquatch t1_j1jiu1i wrote
> You replied
Notice how I ignored your bad faith argument? That's what I meant by "an actual reply".
> my comments are upvoted
A lot of seals clapping a valid point does not make.
> You still haven't said if you've been to Idaho.
Several times, yes.
aeo1us t1_j1jmi6d wrote
Triggered much? It's more of than obvious (especially based on your initial comment edit) that your political views are in the minority here. Majority rules. That's democracy. If you don't like it, I hear Russia needs citizens badly.
Plus, there's always Idaho.
Lost_Sasquatch t1_j1jo0xj wrote
Majority rules? Not to get all hyperbolic, but by that logic the Holocaust was okay because hey, majority rules.
There's a reason that direct democracies are a bad idea, but thanks for outing yourself as a despot.
[deleted] t1_j1jp893 wrote
[removed]
Captian_Kenai t1_j1ixj0z wrote
Definitely. People in rual areas live vastly different lives than city dwellers and as a result vote very differently and for valid reasons.
We’re seeing this issue all over the country (New York and NYC, Illinois and Chicago, California and LA, Texas and Dallas, and Oregon and Portland) where these giant cities are essentially silencing the rest of the state they’re in. Regardless of what side you’re on it’s a major issue that should be addressed
banjokazooie23 t1_j1jf267 wrote
But...it's not a "city" that's voting, it's individual people. There are more people there. Most of the people in the state are voting a certain way, they just happen to live geographically near each other.
If anything the argument is that states are too geographically large, but if they were divided up then it's actually the rural areas that would suffer more from loss of tax dollars coming from the cities.
There's really no perfect solution to this issue.
andthedevilissix t1_j1jhoaz wrote
Trump's administration was a good lesson in how the devolution of power can provide a powerful check to dumb shit. Put another way - the less centralized power we have, at the state level and the federal level, and the more local governments are empowered to act the more responsive democracy becomes and the less vulnerable to people like Trump the system is.
Reducing the power that the executive branch has, whether at the state or federal level, is beneficial to everyone regardless of politics.
banjokazooie23 t1_j1jrqnk wrote
I mean I definitely agree that our current system doesn't work. Republicans have a disproportionate amount of power in comparison to their percentage of the country's population. It gives us a government that is wildly more conservative than the populace as we've shifted toward more extreme candidates rather than mostly moderates across the board. Ultimately, most people are moderates and our country is more stable with moderates at the helm.
Yuvneas t1_j1j8yff wrote
Ah yes, valid reasons like bigotry, hatred, and christian nationalism leading them to vote to try and ban books, strip rights from others, and enforce their delusional beliefs about a magical sky daddy on the rest of us.
andthedevilissix t1_j1j9s8q wrote
This is a bit of a caricature, and about as accurate as people who think Seattle is full of Antifa Super Soldiers who want to mandate dildo education for 3 year olds
banjokazooie23 t1_j1jfl0y wrote
While they could have been more tactful it's sort of disingenuous to argue a "both sides" thing here when one side is actually trying to make laws about banning books/forbidding genuine medical care/etc. and the other side is not actually trying to show toddlers how to use sex toys.
andthedevilissix t1_j1jj4i7 wrote
>actually trying to make laws about banning books
Which states are making laws banning books? If you're referring to individual school districts, you should know that many leftwing districts have banned books as well...books like Huckleberry Fin and To Kill a Mockingbird (the first because of the n word, the second because of "white saviorism")
It seems to me that you inhabit a media bubble, and that's ok it's your life, but it's probably good to check outside of it once in a while.
banjokazooie23 t1_j1jr47v wrote
Eh, honestly, it became too difficult to get news sources that weren't sensationalized so I stopped consuming news. Been a lot happier since lol. But back when I used to see news the right-wing sources were far worse as far as misleading info goes and I've never found myself agreeing with Republicans on their policies from what I've seen from them. Not to say I always agree with the Dems either--because I don't--but unfortunately with our system there are only two options, and the Dems are less uh...objectively evil and cruel than the Republicans.
andthedevilissix t1_j1k88ef wrote
If you decide to look at news again in the future I'd recommend something with an obvious, but minimal, bias. So, for instance, The Economist is obviously pro-business as is The Financial Times - but their reporting is factual and reliable. They may point out the downsides to a unionization drive they cover, but you already know going in that they're coming from that perspective.
Captian_Kenai t1_j1jce5h wrote
Bingo. This clown is part of the problem. This tribal belief that your party is the second coming of Christ and can do no wrong, and the other party is the reincarnation of Statan himself. But in reality both sides are valid and have good points and both have their negatives. Nobody is 100% perfect and neither are political parties.
After all, The only true enemy is the government itself.
andthedevilissix t1_j1jjdk8 wrote
>This tribal belief that your party is the second coming of Christ and can do no wrong, and the other party is the reincarnation of Statan himself.
I just don't understand why people don't see how cringe it is to base their personalities around politicians. It would be so much better if we could all go back to understanding that politicians are all pieces of shit.
JustNilt t1_j1kcrcy wrote
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a pretty shit take on anything. The vast majority of people don't base their personalities around politicians. They support politicians who support things they also support.
andthedevilissix t1_j1np9ui wrote
> The vast majority of people don't base their personalities around politicians.
Yea, there's definitely not a cult of personality around Trump. You're right and very smart.
JustNilt t1_j1ntl36 wrote
Yeah but that's not the vast majority of people, now is it?
WikiSummarizerBot t1_j1kcsiz wrote
>Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: 'after this, therefore because of this') is an informal fallacy that states: "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." It is often shortened simply to post hoc fallacy. A logical fallacy of the questionable cause variety, it is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc ('with this, therefore because of this'), in which two events occur simultaneously or the chronological ordering is insignificant or unknown. Post hoc is a logical fallacy in which one event seems to be the cause of a later event because it occurred earlier.
^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Captian_Kenai t1_j1j9f5x wrote
Red side bad.
edc582 t1_j1jkkpp wrote
And the rural dwellers of Mississippi, Tennessee, Missouri, Louisiana, Kentucky, Kansas, etc... all outvote urban interests in their states.
Congrats. You've noticed the dividing line in US politics is now Urban vs. Rural with suburbs being the kingmakers. This is not how it always was and likely is not how it will always be. If people are unhappy with the current division, all they need to do is wait for a political realignment. We are probably due for one anyway, and are likely seeing one happen in real time.
bernyzilla t1_j1jhcv2 wrote
Poor people live very different lives than rich people, black people live very different lives then white people, women live different lives than men. All those groups are vastly underrepresented politically, should they also get extra votes?
If the status of living in Wyoming get you three votes for president to everyone one a Washingtonian gets, should not like people get two? Poor Middle Eastern women get four?
The issue that needs to be addressed is some people get more votes than others. Living in a different area should not get you an extra vote, and land mass should not get to vote either.
Right now 60 to 75% of the country supports Medicare for all, But senators that represent only a small percent of the nation are able to prevent it because of the outdated way the United States government represents people.
The only fair way to do it is one person one vote. We need to change our laws to acknowledge that and move from a flawed democracy to a true democracy.
UncommonSense12345 t1_j1jtw2t wrote
Yep legal gun owners in rural areas (and urban as well) are stripped of their constitutional rights (see recent Supreme Court Bruen decision) by urban liberal voters in this state because many city/suburbs dwellers don’t use guns in their day to day life and think banning them will solve gun violence. Show me where banning drugs stopped drug violence? Banning alcohol , alcohol violence (dui, domestic violence, etc)? Difference is guns are protected by our Federal and State constitution but WA lawmakers don’t care because gun owners are in the minority so they can pass whatever law they want constitutional or not. Have these “common sense gun laws” worked so far? Most gun owners are all for background checks and training on safety and safe storage. But banning the very tools needed for hunting, self defense, defense of our communities is straight up a violation of the second amendment. It bugs me so much to live in a state where we are doing this. And I know I will be downvoted into infinity but I ask you look up the origins of gun control…. Like lots of things came out of racism…. See black panthers… and see how gun laws are rarely enforced and when they are they are disproportionally used on the poor and minorities. So our dear overlords sell “gun laws” for safety to their white liberal voters and the result is more and poor and minorities in jail and no real reduction in gun violence. If you don’t fix the reasons for violence you will never ever stop it.
And the reason they want gun control is control of the population and to tighten their grip on power and lessen chance of citizens holding them accountable and to make us more dependent on them. It baffles me that the party that does not lien the police writes laws where the police are exempt from the gun control laws…. So only criminals and police will have: “high capacity” (really standard capacity) magazines and semi automatic rifles. While law abiding citizens will be forced to be handcuffed with nerfed weapons…. All for our safety???? Make it make sense…. If they want mandatory safety training… sign me up. Mandatory background checks… sign me up. But banning common defense tools but exempting themselves and criminals???? Come on now people wake up…
Lost_Sasquatch t1_j1izkfp wrote
This is the last 10 years of gun control legislation in the state.
We have state preemption, which means it's all or nothing, the entire state has to have the same gun laws.
WA has had a system of ballot initiatives since 1912, where you can bypass the state legislature by gathering enough signatures to get the initiative on the ballot. If it passes it becomes law.
So Seattle billionaires have been bankrolling initiative campaigns in King county (paying signature gatherers, media campaigns, paying for transportation to polling stations, etc.)
Captian_Kenai t1_j1iztc8 wrote
Wow, I didn’t know it was this bad. My hatred for Seattle grows once more
Lost_Sasquatch t1_j1j1qqk wrote
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014/
Check out this article by one of the billionaires doing it, Nick Hanauer. It's basically an open letter to other 0.1%ers saying "We need to disarm the peasants to they can't rise up against us."
Ironically, the left leaning population that claim to hate billionaires are the tool he's using to disarm the public.
theblackchin t1_j1og7fw wrote
How is that your takeaway from the article? It’s literally saying change the economics or pitchforks will come, but your takeaway was that it was about guns? Seriously???
Lost_Sasquatch t1_j1p15w7 wrote
He has spent his money on gun control campaigns, not economic reform, kind of telling.
CassiusTheRugBug t1_j1j84ui wrote
Most interesting thing I’ve looked at all day
AtlasShrugged- t1_j1j4gbj wrote
I see my house!
MoiJaimeLesCrepes t1_j1j9tmr wrote
the big spike on the west of the puget sound - is that Bremerton and SIlverlake? or Bainbridge? it's a bit hard to read due to the angle the map is at
​
edit: Silverdale.
laurieporrie t1_j1jbkda wrote
Looks like Silverdale and Bremerton down to Port Orchard
11629m t1_j1jhq55 wrote
Do you mean Bremerton and Silverdale? If so, yes.
MethodGrabMatt t1_j1j8wjq wrote
This is awesome. Any chance you could do one of Oregon too?
fatmanchoo t1_j1ih9oj wrote
WAZZU kids and nobody else.
AnchorJG t1_j1j1hsg wrote
I was gonna ask, is pullman during the semester or in summer break?
CheckmateApostates t1_j1jynja wrote
Pullman is a liberal-leaning city without the migratory students
CheckmateApostates t1_j1jxhb3 wrote
This really brings out the separation of western, central, and eastern Washington. Kinda cool.
[deleted] t1_j1imhjy wrote
[removed]
SixGunZen t1_j1kwl14 wrote
Almost makes you wonder why the people crowded around the Sound get to decide on legislation for the entire rest of the state.
Pecners OP t1_j1hvlv1 wrote
I made this in R using the rayshader package (code here). Data from the Kontur Population Dataset. This dataset estimates worldwide population in 400m hexagonal geometries using a combination of "GHSL, Facebook, Microsoft Buildings, Copernicus Global Land Service Land Cover, Land Information New Zealand, and OpenStreetMap data." The map is presented at an angle to better illustrate heights.
I also made a live-coding tutorial for how I make these maps, find the video here.
I'm more active posting this kind of stuff on Twitter, follow me there if you're interested (@MrPecners).
I've also posted other states on their respective subs, see my other maps on my profile: u/Pecners.