why we need electoral college:Los Angeles county is home to more people than each of these 41 states

[TroglocratsRdumb]

If the Corrupt Democratic Party was really serious about "one man one vote" they would be demanding Voter ID laws instead of blocking them.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The rest of the country is leaving you assholes alone. Check out the stats on the number of businesses/people AKA$$$$$$$$$$!!!!!!! leaving your shithole.
Whenever the subject of the EC is brought up a good question is: What do you think the people in the small states would think if the EC was removed?

I live here, we make more than most states....We drive expensive cars....we live in perfect weather and we are enjoying our lives. We don't hate on nobody and we don't car what a miserable racist red neck think of us.

When you say "we" are you referring to the high iQ tech folks of Silicon Valley, the wack-jobs of Hollyweird and a few others that make the spread sheet look good?
It doesn't matter how many times you make your retarded proclamation...it won't become truth or fact....everyone knows that Mexifornia is full of low iQ, disgusting Mexicans...that's why it's become such a shithole on paper and otherwise. A Mexifornia without all the filthy wetbacks is a nicer, safer, more productive CALIFORNIA....this isn't an opinion, the data proves it...Here are some of those things you hate...FACTS!

CA=12% of the nations population...33% of the nations welfare recipients
CA=20.6% of residents live in poverty, the highest rate in the nation
CA=Home to more illegals than any other state...coincidence?
CA=Crime rates off the charts
CA=Home to more incarcerated than any other state
Any questions?

Mexicans are some of the hardest working people. Family oriented and respectful....are there bad apples? Yes just like any other race. Now that I made it clear....i haven' come across a racist and o don't wanna talk to one here....you are just a piece of shit racist prick.

Great, and if you're illegal, perhaps you should go home.

Nah legal and make more money than your entire trailer park family.

Why do the Democrat Voters demand so much welfare and hate middle class so much?

 

[Flopper]

No other modern democracy, has a system that uses an intermediary for the sole purpose of selecting the national leader.

It is archaic and should be abolish.

Actually Pakistan does. Not that it's a "modern democracy" but it is the only other country that does it, "modern" or otherwise.

True.
Years ago, it was argued that the electoral college protected smaller states who had little in common with large states. That well may have been true years ago, but increasing, major national issues tend to be major issues of all states. Once only a few east and west coast states had much interest in foreign trade. Today, what state doesn't, as well as stopping terrorism, the national debt, federal taxes, etc. Yes, small states will always have issues that larger states don't but those difference are slowly slipping away as the country becomes more uniform.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The Founding Fathers recognized that The People were idiots, and could be swayed by charlatans - this even when only white male property owners could vote. With children (18-21) and women voting, and with no attempt whatsoever to exclude illiterates, morons, and Liberals, their recognition is even more important today.

NO SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS under our Constitution are made by majority vote. The People vote for representatives, and those representatives make the significant decisions. Note that the common practice of casting all electoral votes for the individual who wins the "popular vote" in each state is nowhere in the Constitution, and could be changed relatively easily with a little push from our honest politicians.

While Leftists bemoan the practice of "Gerry-mandering," the real problem for Leftists at the polls is that they tend to congregate in urban areas, and dominate those areas with majorities of 75% or more. In "minority" neighborhoods, polling often approaches (and exceeds) 100% Democrat. Hence, it is easy for people laying out district boundaries to group them all together, and ultimately for a minority of overall voters to win a majority of the available seats. This is what we have in my home state of Pennsylvania.

Thank God.

The statement about Los Angeles county in the OP could also be stated for Greater NYC. So what? Look at who they put in office. Idiots.

The lefts complain about gerrymandering, but just look at Illinois 4th (Luis Gutierrez's District!) Often called the worst case of gerrymandering in the country.

The process of gerrymandering has become quite a joke.

Back in the old days, you would divide one party up so they did not dominate the electorate and guarantee the opposing party won. That was found to be illegal.

After the days of the civil rights movement, gerrymandering was changed and encouraged by the courts to concentrate "blacks" in one district to almost guarantee they would have a "black" elected to represent them. That too has now been found to be illegal, so we are right back to the first situation.

Florida had a Congressional district that was so gerrymandered, to include only "blacks", that a person (white) living on one side of a highway would be in one district, the middle of road would be in the gerrymandered "black" district despite no one living there, and the person (white) on the other side of the road from their neighbor would be in the same or completely different district.

When I moved to Florida, I registered to vote and was living in that same district. After the next census, I guess they decided my neighborhood was not black enough and moved us to the other Congressional district by shifting the boundary about 200 yards. Even though I never moved, my elected representative in Congress was changed. That was all in the interest of giving someone else political power.

 

[Pogo]

If an electoral college method of doing elections is the best way to do them,

then 99.9% of the elections held in this country are doing them a worse way.

It's a good way to elect the president. Liberals should cheer the EC because it ensures a diversity of viewpoints are represented in the election. Or do liberals only cheer diversity that does not include viewpoints?

Absolute poppycock. All it 'ensures' is that you get a Hobson's Choice of a Republicrat or a Demoblican. The difference between the two not being worth a bucket of warm piss.

 

[Pogo]

If the Corrupt Democratic Party was really serious about "one man one vote" they would be demanding Voter ID laws instead of blocking them.

Ironic post for a guy running a fake ID in his own avatar.

Just sayin', irony.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If an electoral college method of doing elections is the best way to do them,

then 99.9% of the elections held in this country are doing them a worse way.

It's a good way to elect the president. Liberals should cheer the EC because it ensures a diversity of viewpoints are represented in the election. Or do liberals only cheer diversity that does not include viewpoints?

I have no interest in the advancement of bad ideas or bad policies. Why would anyone?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

We are more productive than most of those states. We are also diverse and accepting.
We are not affected by trumps racism, we have illegals who are decent people that came here to better their lives. Leave us alone.

The rest of the country is leaving you assholes alone. Check out the stats on the number of businesses/people AKA$$$$$$$$$$!!!!!!! leaving your shithole.
Whenever the subject of the EC is brought up a good question is: What do you think the people in the small states would think if the EC was removed?

I live here, we make more than most states....We drive expensive cars....we live in perfect weather and we are enjoying our lives. We don't hate on nobody and we don't car what a miserable racist red neck think of us.

When you say "we" are you referring to the high iQ tech folks of Silicon Valley, the wack-jobs of Hollyweird and a few others that make the spread sheet look good?
It doesn't matter how many times you make your retarded proclamation...it won't become truth or fact....everyone knows that Mexifornia is full of low iQ, disgusting Mexicans...that's why it's become such a shithole on paper and otherwise. A Mexifornia without all the filthy wetbacks is a nicer, safer, more productive CALIFORNIA....this isn't an opinion, the data proves it...Here are some of those things you hate...FACTS!

CA=12% of the nations population...33% of the nations welfare recipients
CA=20.6% of residents live in poverty, the highest rate in the nation
CA=Home to more illegals than any other state...coincidence?
CA=Crime rates off the charts
CA=Home to more incarcerated than any other state
Any questions?

Couple, yeah.

1. "CA=12% of the nations population...33% of the nations welfare recipients" <<-- Question 1: what does this have to do with the electoral college? Question two -- Link?
   
2. "CA=20.6% of residents live in poverty, the highest rate in the nation" -- Provably bullshit. Question 3,: what does this have to do with the electoral college? Question 4, why are you not counting Mississippi, Louisiana, New Mexico, Alabama, Kentucky, Arkansas, DC, Georgia, West Virginia, AridZona, Tennessee, BOTH of the Carolinas, Texas, Florida and Oklahoma? Have they seceded?
   
3. "CA=Home to more illegals than any other state...coincidence?" <-- Question 5: home to more PEOPLE than any other state.... math? Question 6 what does this have to do with the Electrical College? Question 7: Link?
   
4. "CA=Crime rates off the charts" <--- Question 8: "charts"? Suddenly we abandon specificity? Link?
   
5. "CA=Home to more incarcerated than any other state" <--- Question 9: same as Question 5 Question 10: Link? Question 11: what the fuck does this have to do with the electrical college?

California isn't in the top 6, by percentages. Poverty stricken states are Republican. The popular vote should elect the President(.) Trump stated he would have won the popular vote if he had chosen to, wwhy the bizarre, incorrect posts?

Actually CA does have the highest poverty rate according to the LA Times.
BTW southern states have high poverty rates because of the same reason. They have high percentages of poor minority Democrat voters.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Dallas also has a large population; the EC was set up since lack of transportation made voting time consuming, transporting ballots impossible in places, and was intended to reflect the popular vote. Problems begun with J.Q. Adams/Jackson, Tilden/Hayes led to riots. Clinton's popular vote victory was large enough to make the error glaring. There is no reason why my vote counts less than that of an Iowa citizen. Popular vote, OR, modified EC reflects the actual vote. Two states have modified EC.

Explain why small states (population) receive greater weighted votes.

First, you realize that GWB was elected 17 years ago without winning the popular vote. I guess you didn't like Gore either.

You had better hope no one ever changes it, or Democrats will never win another national election. Imagine if we voted the way Maine and Nebraska votes. Democrats would claim 2 electoral votes if they win the popular vote, but they would lose far more by Congressional districts. That gerrymandering comes in handy when the Republicans control so many state legislatures who design those districts. If that method was adopted by most states, imagine how much impact that would have to nullify Democrats chances.

In 2016, Hillary would have lost the Congressional districts by 230-205. She would have lost the states popular vote 30-20, but also taking DC.

That would have made Trump 290 electoral votes to Clinton's 248. That's not much different than 304-227 using the current method.

Guess what! Trump would STILL be President!

She loses again! Suck it up, buttercup!

 

[sakinago]

The American regional politics changes ALL THE TIME.

Oh does it now

Then essplain why this board is constantly whining about "red states" and "blue states" and how "California and New York shouldn't count". Explain the terms "Solid South" and the "Southern Strategy" and "flyover country".

They change "all the time" do they?

(and I hate the 2 party system)

Apparently not, since you're shilling for the very mechanism that keeps it in place.

AND THERE WERE CAMPAIGN EVENTS ACROSS RURAL AMERICA BY BOTH CANDIDATES.

Only in "swing states". Again, already covered this too.

Making it a popularity vote, WILL ONLY ENHANCE THE PROBLEMS YOU CLAIM THE EC CREATES.

Once again, simply saying so doesn't make it so. Make your case with cause and effect. You know --- like I did.

nd the 3/5s ruling is what gave unequal power to slave states, not the EC, and it should’ve been 0/5s

It was exactly the EC that gave Virginia the power to elect ten of the first eleven administrations, with their inflated and dominant EC vote power -- inflated by its slave population. That's why the 3/5 Compromise was struck in the first place!

but I don’t blame people not following the constitution, on the constitution.

Nor do I. Again, try to make your case with cause and effect. I don't know where y'all yahoos get this idea that you can just proclaim something by capricious fiat.

I had a capricious Fiat once but that's another story....


Again this is where I stopped. Again the reason is "paragraph breaks".
I hear they're on sale today.

Are you shitting me...the south was predominantly democrat, California used to be a red state stronghold...again just a very short sighted comment.

http://www.peteradz.com/map/1960-political-parties-united-states-map.php

This map will look starkly different from the 80s, which will look different from the 2000s and will look much different today.

And the Democratic Party has drastically changed policies, even in the past 10 years, the shift is quite drastic. And the GOP today looks like the dems of the 90s. There’s nothing static about American politics (or any other politics around the world) which is why it is important we stick to our constitution that limits power, wether the power is central government or mob rule.

And no it was the 3/5s compromise, a compromise that had to be made because Virginia and other slave states wanted to take their ball and go home. The north (which was more densely populated), wanted the slaves to count for 0. But for some reason, the south thought it was ok to say “we’re not gonna treat them like people, but we want you guys to count them as people.” Not because of EC, but the south trying to get an edge, and take advantage of their slave population further....and today we don’t have slaves...so what’s the problem with EC?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Dallas also has a large population; the EC was set up since lack of transportation made voting time consuming, transporting ballots impossible in places, and was intended to reflect the popular vote. Problems begun with Adams/Jefferson, Tilden/Hayes led to riots. Clinton's popular vote victory was large enough to make the error glaring. There is no reason why my vote counts less than that of an Iowa citizen. Popular vote, OR, modified EC reflects the actual vote. Two states have modified EC.

Explain why small states (population) receive greater weighted votes.

Sadly they've only "modified" them into slightly smaller versions where an entire Congressional District is still lumped into a single vote, which is only a reduction of the same issues.

In Maine's case for example Clinton won the popular vote 48% to 45% yet won the electoral vote 3 to 1. A proportionate vote would have been 2-2.

My state has 15 EVs, which Rump won by a razor-thin margin. Allocated proportionally they would have been 8-7.

So Trump received all 15, same with Florida 2000. A couple hundred votes, Bush received all. Election by popular vote is long overdue.

The candidates could campaign in about the top 20 most populous cities in the country and most of us would never see or hear from them. The national lame stream media would have absolute control over what was important for any voters to hear.

That is not being a citizen. That is being a subject.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

BTW John Kennedy and Billyboy Clinton never won the popular vote

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If ever there was an argument for the Electoral College... this may be it.

The major flaws in the electoral college are:

There are 12 states that are the perennial swings states that candidates concentrate on and 4 or 6 are must wins. Furthermore, most of these states are not our smallest states which shoots down the idea that small states are protected by the electoral college.

Once we get past the primaries, the general election focuses on a these few battleground states. Deals and promises are made for support within those states, and candidates tend to ignore the vast majority of the country in order to gain favor of a handful of voters in a few states.

Second, It violates the one person, one vote rule, which should be the proper rule of a modern democracy. No other modern democracy, has a system that uses an intermediary for the sole purpose of selecting the national leader.

It is archaic and should be abolish.

Where is this rule written?

Who do you consider to be a modern democracy? (this is going to be good!)

 

[Pogo]

The rest of the country is leaving you assholes alone. Check out the stats on the number of businesses/people AKA$$$$$$$$$$!!!!!!! leaving your shithole.
Whenever the subject of the EC is brought up a good question is: What do you think the people in the small states would think if the EC was removed?

I live here, we make more than most states....We drive expensive cars....we live in perfect weather and we are enjoying our lives. We don't hate on nobody and we don't car what a miserable racist red neck think of us.

When you say "we" are you referring to the high iQ tech folks of Silicon Valley, the wack-jobs of Hollyweird and a few others that make the spread sheet look good?
It doesn't matter how many times you make your retarded proclamation...it won't become truth or fact....everyone knows that Mexifornia is full of low iQ, disgusting Mexicans...that's why it's become such a shithole on paper and otherwise. A Mexifornia without all the filthy wetbacks is a nicer, safer, more productive CALIFORNIA....this isn't an opinion, the data proves it...Here are some of those things you hate...FACTS!

CA=12% of the nations population...33% of the nations welfare recipients
CA=20.6% of residents live in poverty, the highest rate in the nation
CA=Home to more illegals than any other state...coincidence?
CA=Crime rates off the charts
CA=Home to more incarcerated than any other state
Any questions?

Couple, yeah.

1. "CA=12% of the nations population...33% of the nations welfare recipients" <<-- Question 1: what does this have to do with the electoral college? Question two -- Link?
   
2. "CA=20.6% of residents live in poverty, the highest rate in the nation" -- Provably bullshit. Question 3,: what does this have to do with the electoral college? Question 4, why are you not counting Mississippi, Louisiana, New Mexico, Alabama, Kentucky, Arkansas, DC, Georgia, West Virginia, AridZona, Tennessee, BOTH of the Carolinas, Texas, Florida and Oklahoma? Have they seceded?
   
3. "CA=Home to more illegals than any other state...coincidence?" <-- Question 5: home to more PEOPLE than any other state.... math? Question 6 what does this have to do with the Electrical College? Question 7: Link?
   
4. "CA=Crime rates off the charts" <--- Question 8: "charts"? Suddenly we abandon specificity? Link?
   
5. "CA=Home to more incarcerated than any other state" <--- Question 9: same as Question 5 Question 10: Link? Question 11: what the fuck does this have to do with the electrical college?

California isn't in the top 6, by percentages. Poverty stricken states are Republican. The popular vote should elect the President(.) Trump stated he would have won the popular vote if he had chosen to, wwhy the bizarre, incorrect posts?

Actually CA does have the highest poverty rate according to the LA Times.
BTW southern states have high poverty rates because of the same reason. They have high percentages of poor minority Democrat voters.

Once again --- no link. I DID provide a link, and it shows that California has the highest poverty rate only if you fail to count fifteen other states, plus DC.

Which sounds remarkably similar to "if you subtract California, Rump wins the popular vote".

Which sounds remarkably similar to "if you subtract X million illegal voters I don't have a link for either, Rump wins the popular vote".

Which sounds remarkably similar to "if you subtract the Mariners, Angels, Giants, As, Dodgers, Padres, Dbacks, Rockies, Twins, Cubs, Cardinals, Astros, Rangers, Braves, Marlins, Rays, Gnats, Mets, Wankees, Indians, Tigers, Phillies, Royals, Brewers, Pirates, Reds, Red Sox and Orioles, the White Sox are the World Champeens".

Must be comfy living in a bubble. I understand there are no sharp edges.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No other modern democracy, has a system that uses an intermediary for the sole purpose of selecting the national leader.

It is archaic and should be abolish.

Actually Pakistan does. Not that it's a "modern democracy" but it is the only other country that does it, "modern" or otherwise.

True.
Years ago, it was argued that the electoral college protected smaller states who had little in common with large states. That well may have been true years ago, but increasing, major national issues tend to be major issues of all states. Once only a few east and west coast states had much interest in foreign trade. Today, what state doesn't, as well as stopping terrorism, the national debt, federal taxes, etc. Yes, small states will always have issues that larger states don't but those difference are slowly slipping away as the country becomes more uniform.

You must have been absent that day or fell asleep in class.

 

[jillian]

BTW John Kennedy and Billyboy Clinton never won the popular vote

but they didn't have a 36% approval rating and they didn't lose the popular vote by 3 million.

you really want to go there, dum dum?

 

[Pogo]

BTW John Kennedy and Billyboy Clinton never won the popular vote

Actually they did.

Do you mean "a majority"?

 

[BrokeLoser]

I live here, we make more than most states....We drive expensive cars....we live in perfect weather and we are enjoying our lives. We don't hate on nobody and we don't car what a miserable racist red neck think of us.

When you say "we" are you referring to the high iQ tech folks of Silicon Valley, the wack-jobs of Hollyweird and a few others that make the spread sheet look good?
It doesn't matter how many times you make your retarded proclamation...it won't become truth or fact....everyone knows that Mexifornia is full of low iQ, disgusting Mexicans...that's why it's become such a shithole on paper and otherwise. A Mexifornia without all the filthy wetbacks is a nicer, safer, more productive CALIFORNIA....this isn't an opinion, the data proves it...Here are some of those things you hate...FACTS!

CA=12% of the nations population...33% of the nations welfare recipients
CA=20.6% of residents live in poverty, the highest rate in the nation
CA=Home to more illegals than any other state...coincidence?
CA=Crime rates off the charts
CA=Home to more incarcerated than any other state
Any questions?

Couple, yeah.

1. "CA=12% of the nations population...33% of the nations welfare recipients" <<-- Question 1: what does this have to do with the electoral college? Question two -- Link?
   
2. "CA=20.6% of residents live in poverty, the highest rate in the nation" -- Provably bullshit. Question 3,: what does this have to do with the electoral college? Question 4, why are you not counting Mississippi, Louisiana, New Mexico, Alabama, Kentucky, Arkansas, DC, Georgia, West Virginia, AridZona, Tennessee, BOTH of the Carolinas, Texas, Florida and Oklahoma? Have they seceded?
   
3. "CA=Home to more illegals than any other state...coincidence?" <-- Question 5: home to more PEOPLE than any other state.... math? Question 6 what does this have to do with the Electrical College? Question 7: Link?
   
4. "CA=Crime rates off the charts" <--- Question 8: "charts"? Suddenly we abandon specificity? Link?
   
5. "CA=Home to more incarcerated than any other state" <--- Question 9: same as Question 5 Question 10: Link? Question 11: what the fuck does this have to do with the electrical college?

California isn't in the top 6, by percentages. Poverty stricken states are Republican. The popular vote should elect the President(.) Trump stated he would have won the popular vote if he had chosen to, wwhy the bizarre, incorrect posts?

Actually CA does have the highest poverty rate according to the LA Times.
BTW southern states have high poverty rates because of the same reason. They have high percentages of poor minority Democrat voters.

Once again --- no link. I DID provide a link, and it shows that California has the highest poverty rate only if you fail to count fifteen other states, plus DC.

Which sounds remarkably similar to "if you subtract California, Rump wins the popular vote".

Which sounds remarkably similar to "if you subtract X million illegal voters I don't have a link for either, Rump wins the popular vote".

Which sounds remarkably similar to "if you subtract the Mariners, Angels, Giants, As, Dodgers, Padres, Dbacks, Rockies, Twins, Cubs, Cardinals, Astros, Rangers, Braves, Marlins, Rays, Gnats, Mets, Wankees, Indians, Tigers, Phillies, Royals, Brewers, Pirates, Reds, Red Sox and Orioles, the White Sox are the World Champeens".

Must be comfy living in a bubble. I understand there are no sharp edges.

What part of these facts are you struggling to understand?
Perhaps you can have a third grader explain it to you.
Or are you clambering to hold on to the the metrics which does not factor in fundamental basics such as cost of living in X region?
Does that misleading method make your shithole blue states look better on paper? Haha...I know how you Tards love to be confused and misguided.

California’s poverty rate remains nation’s highest
BY JIM MILLER

"One in five Californians lives in poverty, the highest rate in the country, according to new data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

The “Supplemental Poverty Measure,” factors in cost of living and shows a stubbornly high share of Golden State residents in poverty even as the national rate has dropped slightly.

Under the methodology, an estimated 20.4 percent of Californians lived below the poverty line in a three-year average of 2014, 2015 and 2016. That is virtually unchanged from the 20.6 percent average for 2013, 2014 and 2015, according to Tuesday’s release.

Nationwide, 14.7 percent of people lived in poverty under the supplemental measure during the latest three-year average. That is down slightly from 15.1 percent for the previous three years.

Experts said California’s higher supplemental rate reflects the impact of higher housing prices and other costs. “Californians are more likely to be poor than residents in any other state,” said Sara Kimberlin, senior policy analyst at the California Budget and Policy Center.

Under the official poverty measure, meanwhile, 14.5 percent of California residents live in poverty, down from 15 percent. That is 16th highest in the state and slightly above the 13.7 percent nationwide average in 2016.

A separate census release Tuesday showed that the percentage of California residents without health insurance dropped to 7.3 percent in 2016, down from 17.2 percent in 2013. That ranks 23rd nationwide, below the national average, but well above 2.5 percent uninsured rate for Massachusetts."
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article172973181.html

 

[Pogo]

When you say "we" are you referring to the high iQ tech folks of Silicon Valley, the wack-jobs of Hollyweird and a few others that make the spread sheet look good?
It doesn't matter how many times you make your retarded proclamation...it won't become truth or fact....everyone knows that Mexifornia is full of low iQ, disgusting Mexicans...that's why it's become such a shithole on paper and otherwise. A Mexifornia without all the filthy wetbacks is a nicer, safer, more productive CALIFORNIA....this isn't an opinion, the data proves it...Here are some of those things you hate...FACTS!

CA=12% of the nations population...33% of the nations welfare recipients
CA=20.6% of residents live in poverty, the highest rate in the nation
CA=Home to more illegals than any other state...coincidence?
CA=Crime rates off the charts
CA=Home to more incarcerated than any other state
Any questions?

Couple, yeah.

1. "CA=12% of the nations population...33% of the nations welfare recipients" <<-- Question 1: what does this have to do with the electoral college? Question two -- Link?
   
2. "CA=20.6% of residents live in poverty, the highest rate in the nation" -- Provably bullshit. Question 3,: what does this have to do with the electoral college? Question 4, why are you not counting Mississippi, Louisiana, New Mexico, Alabama, Kentucky, Arkansas, DC, Georgia, West Virginia, AridZona, Tennessee, BOTH of the Carolinas, Texas, Florida and Oklahoma? Have they seceded?
   
3. "CA=Home to more illegals than any other state...coincidence?" <-- Question 5: home to more PEOPLE than any other state.... math? Question 6 what does this have to do with the Electrical College? Question 7: Link?
   
4. "CA=Crime rates off the charts" <--- Question 8: "charts"? Suddenly we abandon specificity? Link?
   
5. "CA=Home to more incarcerated than any other state" <--- Question 9: same as Question 5 Question 10: Link? Question 11: what the fuck does this have to do with the electrical college?

California isn't in the top 6, by percentages. Poverty stricken states are Republican. The popular vote should elect the President(.) Trump stated he would have won the popular vote if he had chosen to, wwhy the bizarre, incorrect posts?

Actually CA does have the highest poverty rate according to the LA Times.
BTW southern states have high poverty rates because of the same reason. They have high percentages of poor minority Democrat voters.

Once again --- no link. I DID provide a link, and it shows that California has the highest poverty rate only if you fail to count fifteen other states, plus DC.

Which sounds remarkably similar to "if you subtract California, Rump wins the popular vote".

Which sounds remarkably similar to "if you subtract X million illegal voters I don't have a link for either, Rump wins the popular vote".

Which sounds remarkably similar to "if you subtract the Mariners, Angels, Giants, As, Dodgers, Padres, Dbacks, Rockies, Twins, Cubs, Cardinals, Astros, Rangers, Braves, Marlins, Rays, Gnats, Mets, Wankees, Indians, Tigers, Phillies, Royals, Brewers, Pirates, Reds, Red Sox and Orioles, the White Sox are the World Champeens".

Must be comfy living in a bubble. I understand there are no sharp edges.

What part of these facts are you struggling to understand?
Perhaps you can have a third grader explain it to you.
Or are you clambering to hold on to the the metrics which does not factor in fundamental basics such as cost of living in X region?
Does that misleading method make your shithole blue states look better on paper? Haha...I know how you Tards love to be confused and misguided.

California’s poverty rate remains nation’s highest
BY JIM MILLER

"One in five Californians lives in poverty, the highest rate in the country, according to new data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

The “Supplemental Poverty Measure,” factors in cost of living and shows a stubbornly high share of Golden State residents in poverty even as the national rate has dropped slightly.

Under the methodology, an estimated 20.4 percent of Californians lived below the poverty line in a three-year average of 2014, 2015 and 2016. That is virtually unchanged from the 20.6 percent average for 2013, 2014 and 2015, according to Tuesday’s release.

Nationwide, 14.7 percent of people lived in poverty under the supplemental measure during the latest three-year average. That is down slightly from 15.1 percent for the previous three years.

Experts said California’s higher supplemental rate reflects the impact of higher housing prices and other costs. “Californians are more likely to be poor than residents in any other state,” said Sara Kimberlin, senior policy analyst at the California Budget and Policy Center.

Under the official poverty measure, meanwhile, 14.5 percent of California residents live in poverty, down from 15 percent. That is 16th highest in the state and slightly above the 13.7 percent nationwide average in 2016.

A separate census release Tuesday showed that the percentage of California residents without health insurance dropped to 7.3 percent in 2016, down from 17.2 percent in 2013. That ranks 23rd nationwide, below the national average, but well above 2.5 percent uninsured rate for Massachusetts."
California’s poverty rate remains nation’s highest

Sorry no-link boi, I already shot that down.

So did your own quote here -- roll tape:

>> Under the official poverty measure, meanwhile, 14.5 percent of California residents live in poverty, down from 15 percent. That is 16th highest in the state and slightly above the 13.7 percent nationwide average in 2016. <<​

Care to essplain to the class how you can be above the average, and come in last?

Math much?

You still didn't essplain what the fuck any of this has to do with the Electrical College. Or any of those ten other questions.

 

[Timmy]

Dallas also has a large population; the EC was set up since lack of transportation made voting time consuming, transporting ballots impossible in places, and was intended to reflect the popular vote. Problems begun with Adams/Jefferson, Tilden/Hayes led to riots. Clinton's popular vote victory was large enough to make the error glaring. There is no reason why my vote counts less than that of an Iowa citizen. Popular vote, OR, modified EC reflects the actual vote. Two states have modified EC.

Explain why small states (population) receive greater weighted votes.

Sadly they've only "modified" them into slightly smaller versions where an entire Congressional District is still lumped into a single vote, which is only a reduction of the same issues.

In Maine's case for example Clinton won the popular vote 48% to 45% yet won the electoral vote 3 to 1. A proportionate vote would have been 2-2.

My state has 15 EVs, which Rump won by a razor-thin margin. Allocated proportionally they would have been 8-7.

So Trump received all 15, same with Florida 2000. A couple hundred votes, Bush received all. Election by popular vote is long overdue.

The candidates could campaign in about the top 20 most populous cities in the country and most of us would never see or hear from them. The national lame stream media would have absolute control over what was important for any voters to hear.

That is not being a citizen. That is being a subject.

What happens now ? A 1/2 dozen purple states get all the attention.