That same effect demonstrated above can be applied to the brexit map.
The colored squares only indicate that a majority of the population of that area voted one way or the other, with no reference to the magnitude of the populations relative to one another, nor a very granular indication of the magnitude of the opposing votes.
Using that same criteria, imagine if only 20 people lived in all of China and 11 of them vote red. Now imagine you have 5,000,000 people in Poland and all 5 million of them vote blue. If those two countries were placed together on a voting map like the ones you've shared, then blue would have a tiny square, and red would have a massive one.
It doesn't show that 5,000,009 people voted for blue and 11 people voted for red, it just shows that >50% of the population in an area of land voted one way and disregards how many people actually did.
So, no, cities aren't a minority in terms of people at all. They might be a minority in terms of acreage, but not populace.
Now, I'm not entirely sure what your country's political parties beliefs are, but since you've holding up the USA's right wing as being analogous to your own and further equating them as being more wise or intelligent or whatever, I'm gonna use them as the basis of this next point.
Going along with the utterly flawed premise that humans can be anything but K-selective, the right wing here in the US believes in getting rid of birth control as much as is possible. Wouldn't it actually be more K-selective to allow for people to have contraceptive options so as to reduce the number of pregnancies in general, so that not only are the parents able to be of "higher quality" by contributing more and being productive before needing to take care of a child, but also the children would be of "higher quality" due to better preparedness on the part of the parents?
That doesn't matter though, since there isn't such a thing as an r-selective human and there is no underlying biological divide between humans of different political leanings any more than there's an underlying biological divide between two people standing on different sides of a street.
0
@rphb Heh, it's really entertaining that you don't actually understand those maps that you've linked.
http://metrocosm.com/election-2016-map-3d/
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2016/
That same effect demonstrated above can be applied to the brexit map.
The colored squares only indicate that a majority of the population of that area voted one way or the other, with no reference to the magnitude of the populations relative to one another, nor a very granular indication of the magnitude of the opposing votes.
Using that same criteria, imagine if only 20 people lived in all of China and 11 of them vote red. Now imagine you have 5,000,000 people in Poland and all 5 million of them vote blue. If those two countries were placed together on a voting map like the ones you've shared, then blue would have a tiny square, and red would have a massive one.
It doesn't show that 5,000,009 people voted for blue and 11 people voted for red, it just shows that >50% of the population in an area of land voted one way and disregards how many people actually did.
So, no, cities aren't a minority in terms of people at all. They might be a minority in terms of acreage, but not populace.
Now, I'm not entirely sure what your country's political parties beliefs are, but since you've holding up the USA's right wing as being analogous to your own and further equating them as being more wise or intelligent or whatever, I'm gonna use them as the basis of this next point.
Going along with the utterly flawed premise that humans can be anything but K-selective, the right wing here in the US believes in getting rid of birth control as much as is possible. Wouldn't it actually be more K-selective to allow for people to have contraceptive options so as to reduce the number of pregnancies in general, so that not only are the parents able to be of "higher quality" by contributing more and being productive before needing to take care of a child, but also the children would be of "higher quality" due to better preparedness on the part of the parents?
That doesn't matter though, since there isn't such a thing as an r-selective human and there is no underlying biological divide between humans of different political leanings any more than there's an underlying biological divide between two people standing on different sides of a street.