[ToValueFunfetti]

Cable everything is dead. FOX is doing relatively well, but they reach maybe 1% or 2% of the population, and presumably that's almost all already unshifting right-wing people. I'm not saying it's impossible that it's a propaganda power center, but I don't personally know how that would work. It feels like a leftover enemy from the early 2000s that just doesn't make sense post-internet.

[icameron]

"According to data from Nielsen, Fox News — from the period spanning June 20 through Sept. 1 — finished as the no. 1 network in all of broadcast television during the primetime hours of 8-11 PM. During those hours, Fox News averaged 2.43 million total nightly viewers in primetime — topping ABC at 2.38 million, NBC at 2.21 million, and CBS at 2.03 million. It is the second time in the network’s history they accomplished that feat — with the other coming in the summer of 2020."

Whlie it sounds accurate that maybe 1-2% of the population watches it live, it is also the most highly rated and influencing "news" outlet in the US. Their reach is far deeper than 1-2%. It gets retweeted, talked about, and trickles down. It sure seems like at least 1/3rd of the population has a FOX brainworm infection. I've seen in on 24/7 in hotels and some sport bars or restaurants too.

[switchbak]

"It sure seems like at least 1/3rd of the population has a FOX brainworm infection" - you had me right until you pulled this completely out of thin air.

All the main news outlets totalling less than 9 million viewers? That's not compelling at all.

[icameron]

Appreciate it- thanks for the feedback. I was admittedly being inflammatory, much in the spirit of the network we are discussing. In my perception it was not always this way and when it first came out I remember liking it. It was generally "fair and balanced" as their slogan was (they dropped it around 2017 when Obama left the WH). I have only been paying attention the last 30 years or so, and what started with AM radio on the fringe seems to have become mainstream in the last 25 years since 9/11 basically and has accelerated to the point we are at now in the US.

[bongodongobob]

Exactly. Come to the Midwest and you'll see Fox News on in bars, oil change waiting rooms, dentist offices, etc. The other thing to keep in mind is that thanks to the electoral college, that percentage of viewers translates to a higher percentage of electoral votes.

[AnthonyMouse]

> The other thing to keep in mind is that thanks to the electoral college, that percentage of viewers translates to a higher percentage of electoral votes.

Except that it's the opposite. The Dakotas are over-represented in the electoral college but getting them from 60% Republican to even 99% Republican wouldn't gain them a single electoral college vote. Meanwhile states like Michigan and Ohio where changing minds could change outcomes are under-represented in terms of electoral college votes.

But the vote allocations are the least impactful part of the electoral college. If you got rid of the +2 electoral college votes for each state independent of its population, votes in Arizona would still matter more than California. The primary thing the electoral college does isn't to give red states slightly more power than blue states, it's to give swing states dramatically more power than safe states.

[BrenBarn]

> If you got rid of the +2 electoral college votes for each state independent of its population, votes in Arizona would still matter more than California.

There's a bit more to it than the +2 electoral votes from the senate, because even within the House the representations are skewed due to the strange decision to cap the size of the House at 435 seats while guaranteeing each state at least one seat. Thus California has 52 times as many reps as Wyoming although its population is about 67 times greater.

> The primary thing the electoral college does isn't to give red states slightly more power than blue states, it's to give swing states dramatically more power than safe states.

Strictly speaking this too could be changed to some extent without changing the electoral college itself, namely by states switching to allocate their electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote, instead of winner-take all. That is entirely possible now and two states already do it, but it has minimal effect because those states are tiny. But if, for instance, you could win 20 EVs in CA by winning ~40% of the popular vote, you can bet that some campaign dollars would shift to CA from, say, Ohio, because Ohio doesn't even have a total of 20 EVs. You could win more EVs in California while losing the election than you could by winning in Ohio! But most states will not do this because usually the party that wins all the EVs is also the party that controls the state government, and they don't want to give away half their EVs to the other party.

[AnthonyMouse]

> There's a bit more to it than the +2 electoral votes from the senate, because even within the House the representations are skewed due to the strange decision to cap the size of the House at 435 seats while guaranteeing each state at least one seat.

Capping the number of seats is dumb but the way they're apportioned doesn't give any major advantage to small states because the size of the average district and the size of the smallest state aren't very far apart, to the point that some of the districts in states with more than one district have lower populations than some of the states with a single district. Out of the 50 smallest districts, two are state-wide districts; out of the 50 largest districts, two are state-wide districts. The largest district is less than twice the size of the smallest district.

And there is no partisan divide in which states are over or under-represented because of this. Some of the most over-represented districts are currently in Rhode Island and Vermont. Some of the most under-represented districts are currently in Idaho, West Virginia, Utah and Texas. It's basically random because it depends on how evenly the state's population divides the national population, so the only consistent thing is that districts in the biggest states will tend to be of average size and districts in smaller states will tend to be either over-represented or under-represented.

Or to put it another way, California has 52 reps but its population is 71 times the population of the average district in Rhode Island. Except that these are both blue states.

> But most states will not do this because usually the party that wins all the EVs is also the party that controls the state government, and they don't want to give away half their EVs to the other party.

In some sense this is strong evidence that the government is bad at representing the constituents, i.e. the principal-agent problem is real. Constituents in safe states like California would be better off if candidates actually had to care about their votes. Even if you're in the state's majority, it's better for you that candidates from both parties have to address your issues rather than taking you for granted. It might even cause a shift in national priorities towards those of the state because both parties would have to do more to appease them. But then the state's representatives have more loyalty to the national party than their local constituents.

If states like California wanted to be clever they would allocate their electoral college votes something like "if a candidate gets more than 50% of the state's popular vote, they get 50% of its electoral votes plus 5% for each 1% over 50%, with the remainder going to the second place candidate". Which means that in the typical case where the Democrats get >=60% of the state's popular vote, they still get all of the electoral college votes -- 50% + 5x10%. But then that 10% difference between 50% and 60% becomes important to both parties, because each vote in that range is worth five times its weight in electoral votes.

And meanwhile if the Democratic candidate was going to get less than 60% of the vote in California they were very likely to lose the electoral college regardless.

[BrenBarn]

Those are interesting ideas. I still tend to think though that such fiddling is only necessary if we insist on single-member districts with first-past-the-post systems. A proportional system essentially forces each party to pay attention everywhere because every vote everywhere counts. Having districts where the overall result is an aggregate of mini-elections in each district encourages various forms of gaming the system (like gerrymandering). The states themselves are another case of such districts.

I'm increasingly skeptical of the idea that the composition of government organs whose authority extends over a large jurisdiction should be determined by mini-elections in sub-jurisdictions. It makes sense to have sub-jurisdictions insofar as they can set local policy, but if a legislative body is going to make laws for the whole US it should, as a whole, be accountable to the whole US. Especially in the modern age, the relevant constituencies are defined as much by beliefs as by geographical location.

[ToValueFunfetti]

If I gather right-wing propaganda retweets, what fraction do you think will be retweets of FOX clips versus retweets of a right-wing propaganda twitter account? I don't have a methodology in mind, but I'm curious and will come up with something if you think substantially higher than me (<10%). I don't see why anyone would center FOX in the current media landscape. Musk alone has more than an order of magnitude more reach.

My understanding is that Nielsen does track what people encounter at hotels etc. (though only recently), so that should be included (?)

[BrenBarn]

But what about all the re-presentations of the same content in YouTube clips, etc.? It's true that cable as a delivery mechanism is declining but that doesn't necessarily mean stuff like Fox as a content source is declining in influence.