In New Zealand, abortion was legal, but there was a shortage of doctors. Rapkin was going to help lead a training program in the country’s capital, much like the one she’d built here, but with less red tape. This time, she would be paid by the government for her work, not singled out for it.
It’s not only not a perfect representation it’s actually deceiving because it hides the urban/rural divide. It’s also not measuring the number of people voting, it’s looking at acreage which is a useless metric.
It doesn’t show the urban/rural split because that’s not the focus of the map. There are many layers to American politics, one of them happens to be regional. If you believe that anything other than red v blue or urban v rural, is “deceptive” and irrelevant, then you’re either an extremely sheltered American or an uninformed foreigner. As someone who has lived their entire life on the border between two of the highlighted regions, I can assure you they are very real and relevant. The reduction down to an urban/rural dichotomy is the result of fifty years of polarization in the two-party system, which ignores 500 years history.
So why did you post it in response to a post I made about the urban/rural divide?
America is not a unified country. This isn’t a new thing, it’s been that way for decades. Half of the country hates the other half.
If you look up, you’ll see that your original post was in response to mine, where I was talking about regional differences. No offense, but you clearly are not well versed in the history of American politics and the way that history impacts the present, and I would recommend you do a little more research if you’re going to pretend otherwise.
I told you that regional differences were not as important or significant as the rural/urban divide and I am right.
Even in those regions the cities voted for democrats.
I would recommend you do get some information outside of whatever bubble you are in before you spew your sanctimonious condescending bullshit.