What Happens If The Election Was A Fraud? The Constitution Doesn’t Say.

[Papageorgio]

Nope. It means Trump sucks even more. Which is why he constantly whines that he really did win the popular vote.

And did you support Hillary that was stupid enough to lose to the worst Presidental candidate ever? Lol! Your butt hurt makes us all laugh! Idiot!

She didn't really lose. After all, California should be worth 200 electoral college votes. As I have pointed out to your unremarkable Repug goober ass several times now.

And let me guess. Wyoming should just be sort of worth none right?

No. If Wyoming is worth 3, then California should be worth around 200. California is 68 times larger than Wyoming. 68 x 3 = 204 electoral college votes.

What's fair is fair.

All you have to do is repeal the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929.

Good luck with that.

BUT IT'S NOT FAIR!!

 

[Cecilie1200]

And did you support Hillary that was stupid enough to lose to the worst Presidental candidate ever? Lol! Your butt hurt makes us all laugh! Idiot!

She didn't really lose. After all, California should be worth 200 electoral college votes. As I have pointed out to your unremarkable Repug goober ass several times now.

And let me guess. Wyoming should just be sort of worth none right?

No. If Wyoming is worth 3, then California should be worth around 200. California is 68 times larger than Wyoming. 68 x 3 = 204 electoral college votes.

What's fair is fair.

All you have to do is repeal the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929.

Good luck with that.

BUT IT'S NOT FAIR!!

Even my kids don't bother trying that line on me after they're about 5 or so.

 

[Trump The Mad King]

She didn't really lose. After all, California should be worth 200 electoral college votes. As I have pointed out to your unremarkable Repug goober ass several times now.

And let me guess. Wyoming should just be sort of worth none right?

No. If Wyoming is worth 3, then California should be worth around 200. California is 68 times larger than Wyoming. 68 x 3 = 204 electoral college votes.

What's fair is fair.

All you have to do is repeal the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929.

Good luck with that.

BUT IT'S NOT FAIR!!

Even my kids don't bother trying that line on me after they're about 5 or so.

Of course you don't want to change the rules. If California was given 68 times more voting power than Wyoming (which is only fair), then no Repug would ever have a chance in hell of ever winning a Presidential election again.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

And let me guess. Wyoming should just be sort of worth none right?

No. If Wyoming is worth 3, then California should be worth around 200. California is 68 times larger than Wyoming. 68 x 3 = 204 electoral college votes.

What's fair is fair.

All you have to do is repeal the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929.

Good luck with that.

BUT IT'S NOT FAIR!!

Even my kids don't bother trying that line on me after they're about 5 or so.

Of course you don't want to change the rules. If California was given 68 times more voting power than Wyoming (which is only fair), then no Repug would ever have a chance in hell of ever winning a Presidential election again.

The senators figure into electoral votes as does rounding.

Which is going to skew things when it comes to the smaller states.

That is the way it was set up.

Fuck CA.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And let me guess. Wyoming should just be sort of worth none right?

No. If Wyoming is worth 3, then California should be worth around 200. California is 68 times larger than Wyoming. 68 x 3 = 204 electoral college votes.

What's fair is fair.

All you have to do is repeal the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929.

Good luck with that.

BUT IT'S NOT FAIR!!

Even my kids don't bother trying that line on me after they're about 5 or so.

Of course you don't want to change the rules. If California was given 68 times more voting power than Wyoming (which is only fair), then no Repug would ever have a chance in hell of ever winning a Presidential election again.

If California was given 68 times more voting power than Wyoming (which is only fair),

Why do you keep including 68 times the senators?
California will never get 136 US senators.

then no Repug would ever have a chance in hell of ever winning a Presidential election again.

BS. Hillary would have still lost if California had 70 EV.

 

[Trump The Mad King]

No. If Wyoming is worth 3, then California should be worth around 200. California is 68 times larger than Wyoming. 68 x 3 = 204 electoral college votes.

What's fair is fair.

All you have to do is repeal the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929.

Good luck with that.

BUT IT'S NOT FAIR!!

Even my kids don't bother trying that line on me after they're about 5 or so.

Of course you don't want to change the rules. If California was given 68 times more voting power than Wyoming (which is only fair), then no Repug would ever have a chance in hell of ever winning a Presidential election again.

If California was given 68 times more voting power than Wyoming (which is only fair),

Why do you keep including 68 times the senators?
California will never get 136 US senators.

then no Repug would ever have a chance in hell of ever winning a Presidential election again.

BS. Hillary would have still lost if California had 70 EV.

Because California has 68 times as many people, that's why.

I don't know if Hillary would have "lost" or not. There are probably other large states getting screwed like California.

Using your logic, I guess you'll now acknowledge that Gore won in 2000.

 

[Papageorgio]

She didn't really lose. After all, California should be worth 200 electoral college votes. As I have pointed out to your unremarkable Repug goober ass several times now.

And let me guess. Wyoming should just be sort of worth none right?

No. If Wyoming is worth 3, then California should be worth around 200. California is 68 times larger than Wyoming. 68 x 3 = 204 electoral college votes.

What's fair is fair.

All you have to do is repeal the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929.

Good luck with that.

BUT IT'S NOT FAIR!!

Even my kids don't bother trying that line on me after they're about 5 or so.

When a person keeps screaming “it’s not fair” means they lost the argument.

 

[Papageorgio]

No. If Wyoming is worth 3, then California should be worth around 200. California is 68 times larger than Wyoming. 68 x 3 = 204 electoral college votes.

What's fair is fair.

All you have to do is repeal the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929.

Good luck with that.

BUT IT'S NOT FAIR!!

Even my kids don't bother trying that line on me after they're about 5 or so.

Of course you don't want to change the rules. If California was given 68 times more voting power than Wyoming (which is only fair), then no Repug would ever have a chance in hell of ever winning a Presidential election again.

If California was given 68 times more voting power than Wyoming (which is only fair),

Why do you keep including 68 times the senators?
California will never get 136 US senators.

then no Repug would ever have a chance in hell of ever winning a Presidential election again.

BS. Hillary would have still lost if California had 70 EV.

The guy doesn’t know the first thing about the Electoral College and how or why it was set up the way it is, all he cares about is what he believes is fair and not about the rule of law. Pretty silly argument.

 

[Trump The Mad King]

All you have to do is repeal the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929.

Good luck with that.

BUT IT'S NOT FAIR!!

Even my kids don't bother trying that line on me after they're about 5 or so.

Of course you don't want to change the rules. If California was given 68 times more voting power than Wyoming (which is only fair), then no Repug would ever have a chance in hell of ever winning a Presidential election again.

If California was given 68 times more voting power than Wyoming (which is only fair),

Why do you keep including 68 times the senators?
California will never get 136 US senators.

then no Repug would ever have a chance in hell of ever winning a Presidential election again.

BS. Hillary would have still lost if California had 70 EV.

The guy doesn’t know the first thing about the Electoral College and how or why it was set up the way it is, all he cares about is what he believes is fair and not about the rule of law. Pretty silly argument.

No one knows why the electoral college was setup that way. No other democracy uses this nonsense. Yeah, a state with 100,000 people should automatically get 3 electoral college votes, 1/18 of the electoral college votes that California has (55). How logical.

Hillary Clinton is the rightful President. And nothing you say is going to convince me otherwise.

 

[SavannahMann]

And let me guess. Wyoming should just be sort of worth none right?

No. If Wyoming is worth 3, then California should be worth around 200. California is 68 times larger than Wyoming. 68 x 3 = 204 electoral college votes.

What's fair is fair.

All you have to do is repeal the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929.

Good luck with that.

BUT IT'S NOT FAIR!!

Even my kids don't bother trying that line on me after they're about 5 or so.

Of course you don't want to change the rules. If California was given 68 times more voting power than Wyoming (which is only fair), then no Repug would ever have a chance in hell of ever winning a Presidential election again.

It isn’t fair. That’s the point. Democracy as you describe it is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All you have to do is repeal the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929.

Good luck with that.

BUT IT'S NOT FAIR!!

Even my kids don't bother trying that line on me after they're about 5 or so.

Of course you don't want to change the rules. If California was given 68 times more voting power than Wyoming (which is only fair), then no Repug would ever have a chance in hell of ever winning a Presidential election again.

If California was given 68 times more voting power than Wyoming (which is only fair),

Why do you keep including 68 times the senators?
California will never get 136 US senators.

then no Repug would ever have a chance in hell of ever winning a Presidential election again.

BS. Hillary would have still lost if California had 70 EV.

Because California has 68 times as many people, that's why.

I don't know if Hillary would have "lost" or not. There are probably other large states getting screwed like California.

Using your logic, I guess you'll now acknowledge that Gore won in 2000.

Because California has 68 times as many people, that's why.

I realize you're a stupid fucktard, but the Founders intentionally gave small states and large states the same number of Senators.

I don't know if Hillary would have "lost" or not.

I know. Hillary won 20 states, Trump won 30.
Just looking at the EVs based on senators, that gives Trump 60 votes and Hillary 40.
Dividing the current population, about 326 million, by 579,000 gives 566.
666 Electoral votes by your "logic". How many of those "extra" 128 is Hillary going to get?
Besides the 15 from California?

There are probably other large states getting screwed like California.

You bet. Texas gets 13 more, Florida gets 9 more, New York gets 7 more, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio each get 4 more, Georgia, North Carolina and Michigan 3 more.

That's the 10 largest population states.
Hillary, +15, +7, +4....California, New York and Illinois.
Trump, +13, +9, +4, +4, +3, +3, +3...Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, N Carolina and Michigan.

+26 for the corrupt drunk.
+39 for Trump.

Feel free to look at the 40 smaller states. 23 of which went for Trump, 17 of which went for Hillary. LOL!

Using your logic, I guess you'll now acknowledge that Gore won in 2000.

No, Gore's 266 EV is still less than Bush's 271 EV.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

BUT IT'S NOT FAIR!!

Even my kids don't bother trying that line on me after they're about 5 or so.

Of course you don't want to change the rules. If California was given 68 times more voting power than Wyoming (which is only fair), then no Repug would ever have a chance in hell of ever winning a Presidential election again.

If California was given 68 times more voting power than Wyoming (which is only fair),

Why do you keep including 68 times the senators?
California will never get 136 US senators.

then no Repug would ever have a chance in hell of ever winning a Presidential election again.

BS. Hillary would have still lost if California had 70 EV.

The guy doesn’t know the first thing about the Electoral College and how or why it was set up the way it is, all he cares about is what he believes is fair and not about the rule of law. Pretty silly argument.

No one knows why the electoral college was setup that way. No other democracy uses this nonsense. Yeah, a state with 100,000 people should automatically get 3 electoral college votes, 1/18 of the electoral college votes that California has (55). How logical.

Hillary Clinton is the rightful President. And nothing you say is going to convince me otherwise.

No one knows why the electoral college was setup that way.

The Founding Fathers know. You should read some of their writings.
You might learn something.

 

[Trump The Mad King]

BUT IT'S NOT FAIR!!

Even my kids don't bother trying that line on me after they're about 5 or so.

Of course you don't want to change the rules. If California was given 68 times more voting power than Wyoming (which is only fair), then no Repug would ever have a chance in hell of ever winning a Presidential election again.

If California was given 68 times more voting power than Wyoming (which is only fair),

Why do you keep including 68 times the senators?
California will never get 136 US senators.

then no Repug would ever have a chance in hell of ever winning a Presidential election again.

BS. Hillary would have still lost if California had 70 EV.

Because California has 68 times as many people, that's why.

I don't know if Hillary would have "lost" or not. There are probably other large states getting screwed like California.

Using your logic, I guess you'll now acknowledge that Gore won in 2000.

Because California has 68 times as many people, that's why.

I realize you're a stupid fucktard, but the Founders intentionally gave small states and large states the same number of Senators.

I don't know if Hillary would have "lost" or not.

I know. Hillary won 20 states, Trump won 30.
Just looking at the EVs based on senators, that gives Trump 60 votes and Hillary 40.
Dividing the current population, about 326 million, by 579,000 gives 566.
666 Electoral votes by your "logic". How many of those "extra" 128 is Hillary going to get?
Besides the 15 from California?

There are probably other large states getting screwed like California.

You bet. Texas gets 13 more, Florida gets 9 more, New York gets 7 more, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio each get 4 more, Georgia, North Carolina and Michigan 3 more.

That's the 10 largest population states.
Hillary, +15, +7, +4....California, New York and Illinois.
Trump, +13, +9, +4, +4, +3, +3, +3...Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, N Carolina and Michigan.

+26 for the corrupt drunk.
+39 for Trump.

Feel free to look at the 40 smaller states. 23 of which went for Trump, 17 of which went for Hillary. LOL!

Using your logic, I guess you'll now acknowledge that Gore won in 2000.

No, Gore's 266 EV is still less than Bush's 271 EV.

Not if CA is worth 70, as you agree it should be. (Referring to Gore's victory)

 

[Trump The Mad King]

Even my kids don't bother trying that line on me after they're about 5 or so.

Of course you don't want to change the rules. If California was given 68 times more voting power than Wyoming (which is only fair), then no Repug would ever have a chance in hell of ever winning a Presidential election again.

If California was given 68 times more voting power than Wyoming (which is only fair),

Why do you keep including 68 times the senators?
California will never get 136 US senators.

then no Repug would ever have a chance in hell of ever winning a Presidential election again.

BS. Hillary would have still lost if California had 70 EV.

The guy doesn’t know the first thing about the Electoral College and how or why it was set up the way it is, all he cares about is what he believes is fair and not about the rule of law. Pretty silly argument.

No one knows why the electoral college was setup that way. No other democracy uses this nonsense. Yeah, a state with 100,000 people should automatically get 3 electoral college votes, 1/18 of the electoral college votes that California has (55). How logical.

Hillary Clinton is the rightful President. And nothing you say is going to convince me otherwise.

No one knows why the electoral college was setup that way.

The Founding Fathers know. You should read some of their writings.
You might learn something.

They also setup the Amendments for a reason. If they could have foreseen worthless states with 10 people such as Wyoming, they probably would be kicking themselves.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Even my kids don't bother trying that line on me after they're about 5 or so.

Of course you don't want to change the rules. If California was given 68 times more voting power than Wyoming (which is only fair), then no Repug would ever have a chance in hell of ever winning a Presidential election again.

If California was given 68 times more voting power than Wyoming (which is only fair),

Why do you keep including 68 times the senators?
California will never get 136 US senators.

then no Repug would ever have a chance in hell of ever winning a Presidential election again.

BS. Hillary would have still lost if California had 70 EV.

Because California has 68 times as many people, that's why.

I don't know if Hillary would have "lost" or not. There are probably other large states getting screwed like California.

Using your logic, I guess you'll now acknowledge that Gore won in 2000.

Because California has 68 times as many people, that's why.

I realize you're a stupid fucktard, but the Founders intentionally gave small states and large states the same number of Senators.

I don't know if Hillary would have "lost" or not.

I know. Hillary won 20 states, Trump won 30.
Just looking at the EVs based on senators, that gives Trump 60 votes and Hillary 40.
Dividing the current population, about 326 million, by 579,000 gives 566.
666 Electoral votes by your "logic". How many of those "extra" 128 is Hillary going to get?
Besides the 15 from California?

There are probably other large states getting screwed like California.

You bet. Texas gets 13 more, Florida gets 9 more, New York gets 7 more, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio each get 4 more, Georgia, North Carolina and Michigan 3 more.

That's the 10 largest population states.
Hillary, +15, +7, +4....California, New York and Illinois.
Trump, +13, +9, +4, +4, +3, +3, +3...Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, N Carolina and Michigan.

+26 for the corrupt drunk.
+39 for Trump.

Feel free to look at the 40 smaller states. 23 of which went for Trump, 17 of which went for Hillary. LOL!

Using your logic, I guess you'll now acknowledge that Gore won in 2000.

No, Gore's 266 EV is still less than Bush's 271 EV.

Not if CA is worth 70, as you agree it should be. (Referring to Gore's victory)

I don't agree CA should be worth 70, that's just the math if every 579,000 in population gave a state an electoral vote. You'd have to be pretty fucking stupid to assume California is the only state that would get more votes. Oh, that's right. LOL!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Of course you don't want to change the rules. If California was given 68 times more voting power than Wyoming (which is only fair), then no Repug would ever have a chance in hell of ever winning a Presidential election again.

If California was given 68 times more voting power than Wyoming (which is only fair),

Why do you keep including 68 times the senators?
California will never get 136 US senators.

then no Repug would ever have a chance in hell of ever winning a Presidential election again.

BS. Hillary would have still lost if California had 70 EV.

The guy doesn’t know the first thing about the Electoral College and how or why it was set up the way it is, all he cares about is what he believes is fair and not about the rule of law. Pretty silly argument.

No one knows why the electoral college was setup that way. No other democracy uses this nonsense. Yeah, a state with 100,000 people should automatically get 3 electoral college votes, 1/18 of the electoral college votes that California has (55). How logical.

Hillary Clinton is the rightful President. And nothing you say is going to convince me otherwise.

No one knows why the electoral college was setup that way.

The Founding Fathers know. You should read some of their writings.
You might learn something.

They also setup the Amendments for a reason. If they could have foreseen worthless states with 10 people such as Wyoming, they probably would be kicking themselves.

They had Delaware and Rhode Island as examples you dumb ass.

 

[Trump The Mad King]

If California was given 68 times more voting power than Wyoming (which is only fair),

Why do you keep including 68 times the senators?
California will never get 136 US senators.

then no Repug would ever have a chance in hell of ever winning a Presidential election again.

BS. Hillary would have still lost if California had 70 EV.

The guy doesn’t know the first thing about the Electoral College and how or why it was set up the way it is, all he cares about is what he believes is fair and not about the rule of law. Pretty silly argument.

No one knows why the electoral college was setup that way. No other democracy uses this nonsense. Yeah, a state with 100,000 people should automatically get 3 electoral college votes, 1/18 of the electoral college votes that California has (55). How logical.

Hillary Clinton is the rightful President. And nothing you say is going to convince me otherwise.

No one knows why the electoral college was setup that way.

The Founding Fathers know. You should read some of their writings.
You might learn something.

They also setup the Amendments for a reason. If they could have foreseen worthless states with 10 people such as Wyoming, they probably would be kicking themselves.

They had Delaware and Rhode Island as examples you dumb ass.

I don't think Virginia or Pennsylvania had 68 times as many people as Delaware or Rhode Island back in the late 1700s, goober. Maybe 10 times as many, if that.

 

[Trump The Mad King]

Of course you don't want to change the rules. If California was given 68 times more voting power than Wyoming (which is only fair), then no Repug would ever have a chance in hell of ever winning a Presidential election again.

If California was given 68 times more voting power than Wyoming (which is only fair),

Why do you keep including 68 times the senators?
California will never get 136 US senators.

then no Repug would ever have a chance in hell of ever winning a Presidential election again.

BS. Hillary would have still lost if California had 70 EV.

Because California has 68 times as many people, that's why.

I don't know if Hillary would have "lost" or not. There are probably other large states getting screwed like California.

Using your logic, I guess you'll now acknowledge that Gore won in 2000.

Because California has 68 times as many people, that's why.

I realize you're a stupid fucktard, but the Founders intentionally gave small states and large states the same number of Senators.

I don't know if Hillary would have "lost" or not.

I know. Hillary won 20 states, Trump won 30.
Just looking at the EVs based on senators, that gives Trump 60 votes and Hillary 40.
Dividing the current population, about 326 million, by 579,000 gives 566.
666 Electoral votes by your "logic". How many of those "extra" 128 is Hillary going to get?
Besides the 15 from California?

There are probably other large states getting screwed like California.

You bet. Texas gets 13 more, Florida gets 9 more, New York gets 7 more, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio each get 4 more, Georgia, North Carolina and Michigan 3 more.

That's the 10 largest population states.
Hillary, +15, +7, +4....California, New York and Illinois.
Trump, +13, +9, +4, +4, +3, +3, +3...Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, N Carolina and Michigan.

+26 for the corrupt drunk.
+39 for Trump.

Feel free to look at the 40 smaller states. 23 of which went for Trump, 17 of which went for Hillary. LOL!

Using your logic, I guess you'll now acknowledge that Gore won in 2000.

No, Gore's 266 EV is still less than Bush's 271 EV.

Not if CA is worth 70, as you agree it should be. (Referring to Gore's victory)

I don't agree CA should be worth 70, that's just the math if every 579,000 in population gave a state an electoral vote. You'd have to be pretty fucking stupid to assume California is the only state that would get more votes. Oh, that's right. LOL!

Hillary didn't lose Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania. Voter suppression took those states from her.

Pennsylvania didn't suddenly turn red after 20+ years of voting for democrats. Bullshit.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If California was given 68 times more voting power than Wyoming (which is only fair),

Why do you keep including 68 times the senators?
California will never get 136 US senators.

then no Repug would ever have a chance in hell of ever winning a Presidential election again.

BS. Hillary would have still lost if California had 70 EV.

Because California has 68 times as many people, that's why.

I don't know if Hillary would have "lost" or not. There are probably other large states getting screwed like California.

Using your logic, I guess you'll now acknowledge that Gore won in 2000.

Because California has 68 times as many people, that's why.

I realize you're a stupid fucktard, but the Founders intentionally gave small states and large states the same number of Senators.

I don't know if Hillary would have "lost" or not.

I know. Hillary won 20 states, Trump won 30.
Just looking at the EVs based on senators, that gives Trump 60 votes and Hillary 40.
Dividing the current population, about 326 million, by 579,000 gives 566.
666 Electoral votes by your "logic". How many of those "extra" 128 is Hillary going to get?
Besides the 15 from California?

There are probably other large states getting screwed like California.

You bet. Texas gets 13 more, Florida gets 9 more, New York gets 7 more, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio each get 4 more, Georgia, North Carolina and Michigan 3 more.

That's the 10 largest population states.
Hillary, +15, +7, +4....California, New York and Illinois.
Trump, +13, +9, +4, +4, +3, +3, +3...Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, N Carolina and Michigan.

+26 for the corrupt drunk.
+39 for Trump.

Feel free to look at the 40 smaller states. 23 of which went for Trump, 17 of which went for Hillary. LOL!

Using your logic, I guess you'll now acknowledge that Gore won in 2000.

No, Gore's 266 EV is still less than Bush's 271 EV.

Not if CA is worth 70, as you agree it should be. (Referring to Gore's victory)

I don't agree CA should be worth 70, that's just the math if every 579,000 in population gave a state an electoral vote. You'd have to be pretty fucking stupid to assume California is the only state that would get more votes. Oh, that's right. LOL!

Hillary didn't lose Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania. Voter suppression took those states from her.

Pennsylvania didn't suddenly turn red after 20+ years of voting for democrats. Bullshit.

And yet you have absolutley NO evidence to back your ignorant claim just more foot stomping cussing and crying about how you lost.

 

[Trump The Mad King]

Because California has 68 times as many people, that's why.

I don't know if Hillary would have "lost" or not. There are probably other large states getting screwed like California.

Using your logic, I guess you'll now acknowledge that Gore won in 2000.

Because California has 68 times as many people, that's why.

I realize you're a stupid fucktard, but the Founders intentionally gave small states and large states the same number of Senators.

I don't know if Hillary would have "lost" or not.

I know. Hillary won 20 states, Trump won 30.
Just looking at the EVs based on senators, that gives Trump 60 votes and Hillary 40.
Dividing the current population, about 326 million, by 579,000 gives 566.
666 Electoral votes by your "logic". How many of those "extra" 128 is Hillary going to get?
Besides the 15 from California?

There are probably other large states getting screwed like California.

You bet. Texas gets 13 more, Florida gets 9 more, New York gets 7 more, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio each get 4 more, Georgia, North Carolina and Michigan 3 more.

That's the 10 largest population states.
Hillary, +15, +7, +4....California, New York and Illinois.
Trump, +13, +9, +4, +4, +3, +3, +3...Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, N Carolina and Michigan.

+26 for the corrupt drunk.
+39 for Trump.

Feel free to look at the 40 smaller states. 23 of which went for Trump, 17 of which went for Hillary. LOL!

Using your logic, I guess you'll now acknowledge that Gore won in 2000.

No, Gore's 266 EV is still less than Bush's 271 EV.

Not if CA is worth 70, as you agree it should be. (Referring to Gore's victory)

I don't agree CA should be worth 70, that's just the math if every 579,000 in population gave a state an electoral vote. You'd have to be pretty fucking stupid to assume California is the only state that would get more votes. Oh, that's right. LOL!

Hillary didn't lose Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania. Voter suppression took those states from her.

Pennsylvania didn't suddenly turn red after 20+ years of voting for democrats. Bullshit.

And yet you have absolutley NO evidence to back your ignorant claim just more foot stomping cussing and crying about how you lost.

I do, at least for Wisconsin. I will save it for another time. Got to work tomorrow...