Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yep, without the EC small population states have not business participating in presidential elections... To do so it would be a feel good charade, meaningless in every way.We have indeed had this discussion before, for two hundred years. Once the WTA ("winner take all") format started snowballing one of the Electoral College's champions, James Madison, called for a Constitutional Amendment that would ban that practice, even though it would have cost his home state of Virginia. So the discussion goes back at least that far.
The Electoral College was invented to act as a buffer between an electorate that was either uninformed about candidates due to the technological limitations of the time, or easily misled by a huckster, in order to subject the decision to better judgment. It was also tweaked to allot extra power to the slave states by counting their slave populations at the negotiated rate of 3/5 of a person (which persons received 0/5 of a vote), which was called "Slave Power".
Obviously technology has changed, slave states no longer exist, and various states have enacted clearly unConstitutional laws requiring their electors to vote WTA regardless of hucksters or better judgments. Today there's only one other country that elects its head of state which does so by indirect method, which is Pakistan.
The Electoral College needs to go literally yesterday. All it does is create the artificial bullshit divisive entities of "red states", "blue states" and "battleground states", none of which would exist without the WTA/EC; in so doing it perpetuates the Duopoly and ensures no third party will ever gain traction; it throws away the votes of millions as pointless, removing the incentive for most people to vote at all, resulting in abysmal turnout; and it ensures that "solid" states taken for granted will never see a candidate; and it makes the electorate dependent on polls to find out whether it's even worth getting out of bed on election day to vote at all. Because for most voters, it isn't.
Either of you klowns want to tell the class what exactly is "funny" about that post?
Where is any of it inaccurate?
WillHaftawaite theHawk
It's simplistic.
When you have cities that have more votes than some states, the states lose
the populations of, I believe, 12 states, could determine the presidency, and the direction of the country in every election year.
Not very 'democratic' in my opinion.
'Flyover' country has as much right and as much say, as those states with larger populations on the coasts.
The point is moot anyway.
'flyover' country will never agree to getting rid of the EC
Yep, without the EC small population states have not business participating in presidential elections... To do so it would be a feel good charade, meaningless in every way.We have indeed had this discussion before, for two hundred years. Once the WTA ("winner take all") format started snowballing one of the Electoral College's champions, James Madison, called for a Constitutional Amendment that would ban that practice, even though it would have cost his home state of Virginia. So the discussion goes back at least that far.
The Electoral College was invented to act as a buffer between an electorate that was either uninformed about candidates due to the technological limitations of the time, or easily misled by a huckster, in order to subject the decision to better judgment. It was also tweaked to allot extra power to the slave states by counting their slave populations at the negotiated rate of 3/5 of a person (which persons received 0/5 of a vote), which was called "Slave Power".
Obviously technology has changed, slave states no longer exist, and various states have enacted clearly unConstitutional laws requiring their electors to vote WTA regardless of hucksters or better judgments. Today there's only one other country that elects its head of state which does so by indirect method, which is Pakistan.
The Electoral College needs to go literally yesterday. All it does is create the artificial bullshit divisive entities of "red states", "blue states" and "battleground states", none of which would exist without the WTA/EC; in so doing it perpetuates the Duopoly and ensures no third party will ever gain traction; it throws away the votes of millions as pointless, removing the incentive for most people to vote at all, resulting in abysmal turnout; and it ensures that "solid" states taken for granted will never see a candidate; and it makes the electorate dependent on polls to find out whether it's even worth getting out of bed on election day to vote at all. Because for most voters, it isn't.
Either of you klowns want to tell the class what exactly is "funny" about that post?
Where is any of it inaccurate?
WillHaftawaite theHawk
It's simplistic.
When you have cities that have more votes than some states, the states lose
the populations of, I believe, 12 states, could determine the presidency, and the direction of the country in every election year.
Not very 'democratic' in my opinion.
'Flyover' country has as much right and as much say, as those states with larger populations on the coasts.
The point is moot anyway.
'flyover' country will never agree to getting rid of the EC
Los Angeles County, California's estimated population is 10,163,507
Wyoming Population 2018
573,720
Montana Population 2018
1,062,330
North Dakota Population 2018
755,238
South Dakota Population 2018
877,790
Idaho Population 2018
1,753,860
Nebraska Population 2018
1,932,549
how many more 'flyover' states would I have to list, just to equal that one county in California?
Yep, without the EC small population states have not business participating in presidential elections... To do so it would be a feel good charade, meaningless in every way.We have indeed had this discussion before, for two hundred years. Once the WTA ("winner take all") format started snowballing one of the Electoral College's champions, James Madison, called for a Constitutional Amendment that would ban that practice, even though it would have cost his home state of Virginia. So the discussion goes back at least that far.
The Electoral College was invented to act as a buffer between an electorate that was either uninformed about candidates due to the technological limitations of the time, or easily misled by a huckster, in order to subject the decision to better judgment. It was also tweaked to allot extra power to the slave states by counting their slave populations at the negotiated rate of 3/5 of a person (which persons received 0/5 of a vote), which was called "Slave Power".
Obviously technology has changed, slave states no longer exist, and various states have enacted clearly unConstitutional laws requiring their electors to vote WTA regardless of hucksters or better judgments. Today there's only one other country that elects its head of state which does so by indirect method, which is Pakistan.
The Electoral College needs to go literally yesterday. All it does is create the artificial bullshit divisive entities of "red states", "blue states" and "battleground states", none of which would exist without the WTA/EC; in so doing it perpetuates the Duopoly and ensures no third party will ever gain traction; it throws away the votes of millions as pointless, removing the incentive for most people to vote at all, resulting in abysmal turnout; and it ensures that "solid" states taken for granted will never see a candidate; and it makes the electorate dependent on polls to find out whether it's even worth getting out of bed on election day to vote at all. Because for most voters, it isn't.
Either of you klowns want to tell the class what exactly is "funny" about that post?
Where is any of it inaccurate?
WillHaftawaite theHawk
It's simplistic.
When you have cities that have more votes than some states, the states lose
the populations of, I believe, 12 states, could determine the presidency, and the direction of the country in every election year.
Not very 'democratic' in my opinion.
'Flyover' country has as much right and as much say, as those states with larger populations on the coasts.
The point is moot anyway.
'flyover' country will never agree to getting rid of the EC
Los Angeles County, California's estimated population is 10,163,507
Wyoming Population 2018
573,720
Montana Population 2018
1,062,330
North Dakota Population 2018
755,238
South Dakota Population 2018
877,790
Idaho Population 2018
1,753,860
Nebraska Population 2018
1,932,549
how many more 'flyover' states would I have to list, just to equal that one county in California?
----------------------------------------- and? What's your point? Are the people of Wyoming (Montana, Dakotas, etc) somehow "worth more" than people elsewhere?
What, are Los Angelinos somehow "subhuman"?
Isn't that revealing.
No
Mob rule is never a good thing
Yep, without the EC small population states have not business participating in presidential elections... To do so it would be a feel good charade, meaningless in every way.We have indeed had this discussion before, for two hundred years. Once the WTA ("winner take all") format started snowballing one of the Electoral College's champions, James Madison, called for a Constitutional Amendment that would ban that practice, even though it would have cost his home state of Virginia. So the discussion goes back at least that far.
The Electoral College was invented to act as a buffer between an electorate that was either uninformed about candidates due to the technological limitations of the time, or easily misled by a huckster, in order to subject the decision to better judgment. It was also tweaked to allot extra power to the slave states by counting their slave populations at the negotiated rate of 3/5 of a person (which persons received 0/5 of a vote), which was called "Slave Power".
Obviously technology has changed, slave states no longer exist, and various states have enacted clearly unConstitutional laws requiring their electors to vote WTA regardless of hucksters or better judgments. Today there's only one other country that elects its head of state which does so by indirect method, which is Pakistan.
The Electoral College needs to go literally yesterday. All it does is create the artificial bullshit divisive entities of "red states", "blue states" and "battleground states", none of which would exist without the WTA/EC; in so doing it perpetuates the Duopoly and ensures no third party will ever gain traction; it throws away the votes of millions as pointless, removing the incentive for most people to vote at all, resulting in abysmal turnout; and it ensures that "solid" states taken for granted will never see a candidate; and it makes the electorate dependent on polls to find out whether it's even worth getting out of bed on election day to vote at all. Because for most voters, it isn't.
Either of you klowns want to tell the class what exactly is "funny" about that post?
Where is any of it inaccurate?
WillHaftawaite theHawk
It's simplistic.
When you have cities that have more votes than some states, the states lose
the populations of, I believe, 12 states, could determine the presidency, and the direction of the country in every election year.
Not very 'democratic' in my opinion.
'Flyover' country has as much right and as much say, as those states with larger populations on the coasts.
The point is moot anyway.
'flyover' country will never agree to getting rid of the EC
Los Angeles County, California's estimated population is 10,163,507
Wyoming Population 2018
573,720
Montana Population 2018
1,062,330
North Dakota Population 2018
755,238
South Dakota Population 2018
877,790
Idaho Population 2018
1,753,860
Nebraska Population 2018
1,932,549
how many more 'flyover' states would I have to list, just to equal that one county in California?
----------------------------------------- and? What's your point? Are the people of Wyoming (Montana, Dakotas, etc) somehow "worth more" than people elsewhere?
What, are Los Angelinos somehow "subhuman"?
Isn't that revealing.
Ok, maybe I'm not communicating this properly.Crazy Cali has more city’s each with a greater population than the northern plains states. A pure popular vote would make their votes meaningless, to the point whereas they would be better off not even participating in presidential elections... Obviously that’s why the progressives want a pure popular vote.But doesn't EC actually do exactly what you are saying? In my example, you can have 1 state, with 51% of the population beat out the other 49% of the population, as well as 6 other states entire population. This means that California alone will have more say than 6 entire central US states.We cant have the East and West Coast telling flyover what to do, especially when it comes to socialist entitlement programs like Obamacare.But "states" are not supposed to elect a president, the people do. Why should the few speak for the many?Wrong, small population states like the dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho etc. might as not even vote in a popular vote because They don’t have the numbers to displace a city like Denver...But states aren't fairly represented. When you can have 51% or the people in California vote for candidate A, and the other 49%, plus the entire populations of Kentucky,Tennessee, arkansas, Missouri and oklahoma vote for candidate B, and candidate A gets more electoral votes, how does that seem fair?
I'm all for the constitution, but I think this is one where I think maybe they got it wrong.
Popular vote seems to me, to be more reflective of the peoples will. That is, after all, what is supposed to decide elections.
As before, I readily admit that I may not be thinking about this in the right way, and hope someone will explain what it is that I'm not seeing.
Pure Popular vote = mob rule
You can get to 270 EVs with just 9 states. So, if you could win those 9 states, that would be fair even if the other 41 states voted to the other candidate?
I understand that this would play in favor of Democrats, and would make it very hard for Republicans to win an election, but the way it works now, the few over rules the many. I mean, we can't be majority rule when it suits us, and then change when it doesn't.
Example, 70% of people disapproved of Obama care, yet we still got it, Republicans threw a fit about that. By the electoral college logic, people should have been just fine with that, since majority rule shouldn't matter.
Like I said the electoral college is genius, without it Rural America might as well will not even vote in presidential elections… Because with a pure popular vote they would have zero say in the direction of the country and running of their own states.
If it went by popular vote, it may not be that way. Am I misunderstanding?
This is supposed to be a republic not a shit eating democracy.Yep, without the EC small population states have not business participating in presidential elections... To do so it would be a feel good charade, meaningless in every way.We have indeed had this discussion before, for two hundred years. Once the WTA ("winner take all") format started snowballing one of the Electoral College's champions, James Madison, called for a Constitutional Amendment that would ban that practice, even though it would have cost his home state of Virginia. So the discussion goes back at least that far.
The Electoral College was invented to act as a buffer between an electorate that was either uninformed about candidates due to the technological limitations of the time, or easily misled by a huckster, in order to subject the decision to better judgment. It was also tweaked to allot extra power to the slave states by counting their slave populations at the negotiated rate of 3/5 of a person (which persons received 0/5 of a vote), which was called "Slave Power".
Obviously technology has changed, slave states no longer exist, and various states have enacted clearly unConstitutional laws requiring their electors to vote WTA regardless of hucksters or better judgments. Today there's only one other country that elects its head of state which does so by indirect method, which is Pakistan.
The Electoral College needs to go literally yesterday. All it does is create the artificial bullshit divisive entities of "red states", "blue states" and "battleground states", none of which would exist without the WTA/EC; in so doing it perpetuates the Duopoly and ensures no third party will ever gain traction; it throws away the votes of millions as pointless, removing the incentive for most people to vote at all, resulting in abysmal turnout; and it ensures that "solid" states taken for granted will never see a candidate; and it makes the electorate dependent on polls to find out whether it's even worth getting out of bed on election day to vote at all. Because for most voters, it isn't.
Either of you klowns want to tell the class what exactly is "funny" about that post?
Where is any of it inaccurate?
WillHaftawaite theHawk
It's simplistic.
When you have cities that have more votes than some states, the states lose
the populations of, I believe, 12 states, could determine the presidency, and the direction of the country in every election year.
Not very 'democratic' in my opinion.
'Flyover' country has as much right and as much say, as those states with larger populations on the coasts.
The point is moot anyway.
'flyover' country will never agree to getting rid of the EC
Los Angeles County, California's estimated population is 10,163,507
Wyoming Population 2018
573,720
Montana Population 2018
1,062,330
North Dakota Population 2018
755,238
South Dakota Population 2018
877,790
Idaho Population 2018
1,753,860
Nebraska Population 2018
1,932,549
how many more 'flyover' states would I have to list, just to equal that one county in California?
----------------------------------------- and? What's your point? Are the people of Wyoming (Montana, Dakotas, etc) somehow "worth more" than people elsewhere?
What, are Los Angelinos somehow "subhuman"?
Isn't that revealing.
To put it simply, With a pure popular vote Urban America is concentrated on, basically the east and west coast. Flyover country will be completely ignored.Ok, maybe I'm not communicating this properly.Crazy Cali has more city’s each with a greater population than the northern plains states. A pure popular vote would make their votes meaningless, to the point whereas they would be better off not even participating in presidential elections... Obviously that’s why the progressives want a pure popular vote.But doesn't EC actually do exactly what you are saying? In my example, you can have 1 state, with 51% of the population beat out the other 49% of the population, as well as 6 other states entire population. This means that California alone will have more say than 6 entire central US states.We cant have the East and West Coast telling flyover what to do, especially when it comes to socialist entitlement programs like Obamacare.But "states" are not supposed to elect a president, the people do. Why should the few speak for the many?Wrong, small population states like the dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho etc. might as not even vote in a popular vote because They don’t have the numbers to displace a city like Denver...
Pure Popular vote = mob rule
You can get to 270 EVs with just 9 states. So, if you could win those 9 states, that would be fair even if the other 41 states voted to the other candidate?
I understand that this would play in favor of Democrats, and would make it very hard for Republicans to win an election, but the way it works now, the few over rules the many. I mean, we can't be majority rule when it suits us, and then change when it doesn't.
Example, 70% of people disapproved of Obama care, yet we still got it, Republicans threw a fit about that. By the electoral college logic, people should have been just fine with that, since majority rule shouldn't matter.
Like I said the electoral college is genius, without it Rural America might as well will not even vote in presidential elections… Because with a pure popular vote they would have zero say in the direction of the country and running of their own states.
If it went by popular vote, it may not be that way. Am I misunderstanding?
As it sits now, the EC does more harm to those other states than the popular vote.
The 51% of the vote erases the other 49% of the votes, as well as the votes of several of the states you mentioned.
As it sits now, if Democrats win cali, it awards those ec vote to the democratic candidate, erasing all of the Republican votes in that state. With a popular vote, those Republican votes still count.
Even if the ec is not done away with, the wta system needs to go. The candidate get the amount of ec votes in proportion of the % of popular votes he won in that state.
I'm probably wrong, just brainstorming it.
--- the POTUS is elected by electors, not voters.
and if the Electoral College is gone, the electors are gone.
no need for electors, under the popular vote.
Again --- it's not up to "flyover country" (which is yet another bullshit concept the WTA EC creates) ---- the Constitution says it's up to states ratifying an Amendment.
there's the rub...
without the 'flyover' states, (about 30) no ratification.
and they aren't going to vote to hang themselves
Ok, maybe I'm not communicating this properly.Crazy Cali has more city’s each with a greater population than the northern plains states. A pure popular vote would make their votes meaningless, to the point whereas they would be better off not even participating in presidential elections... Obviously that’s why the progressives want a pure popular vote.But doesn't EC actually do exactly what you are saying? In my example, you can have 1 state, with 51% of the population beat out the other 49% of the population, as well as 6 other states entire population. This means that California alone will have more say than 6 entire central US states.We cant have the East and West Coast telling flyover what to do, especially when it comes to socialist entitlement programs like Obamacare.But "states" are not supposed to elect a president, the people do. Why should the few speak for the many?Wrong, small population states like the dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho etc. might as not even vote in a popular vote because They don’t have the numbers to displace a city like Denver...
Pure Popular vote = mob rule
You can get to 270 EVs with just 9 states. So, if you could win those 9 states, that would be fair even if the other 41 states voted to the other candidate?
I understand that this would play in favor of Democrats, and would make it very hard for Republicans to win an election, but the way it works now, the few over rules the many. I mean, we can't be majority rule when it suits us, and then change when it doesn't.
Example, 70% of people disapproved of Obama care, yet we still got it, Republicans threw a fit about that. By the electoral college logic, people should have been just fine with that, since majority rule shouldn't matter.
Like I said the electoral college is genius, without it Rural America might as well will not even vote in presidential elections… Because with a pure popular vote they would have zero say in the direction of the country and running of their own states.
If it went by popular vote, it may not be that way. Am I misunderstanding?
As it sits now, the EC does more harm to those other states than the popular vote.
The 51% of the vote erases the other 49% of the votes, as well as the votes of several of the states you mentioned.
As it sits now, if Democrats win cali, it awards those ec vote to the democratic candidate, erasing all of the Republican votes in that state. With a popular vote, those Republican votes still count.
Even if the ec is not done away with, the wta system needs to go. The candidate get the amount of ec votes in proportion of the % of popular votes he won in that state.
I'm probably wrong, just brainstorming it.
But states aren't fairly represented. When you can have 51% or the people in California vote for candidate A, and the other 49%, plus the entire populations of Kentucky,Tennessee, arkansas, Missouri and oklahoma vote for candidate B, and candidate A gets more electoral votes, how does that seem fair?It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.
For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.
Jo
I'm all for the constitution, but I think this is one where I think maybe they got it wrong.
Popular vote seems to me, to be more reflective of the peoples will. That is, after all, what is supposed to decide elections.
As before, I readily admit that I may not be thinking about this in the right way, and hope someone will explain what it is that I'm not seeing.
Yep, without the EC small population states have not business participating in presidential elections... To do so it would be a feel good charade, meaningless in every way.Either of you klowns want to tell the class what exactly is "funny" about that post?
Where is any of it inaccurate?
WillHaftawaite theHawk
It's simplistic.
When you have cities that have more votes than some states, the states lose
the populations of, I believe, 12 states, could determine the presidency, and the direction of the country in every election year.
Not very 'democratic' in my opinion.
'Flyover' country has as much right and as much say, as those states with larger populations on the coasts.
The point is moot anyway.
'flyover' country will never agree to getting rid of the EC
Los Angeles County, California's estimated population is 10,163,507
Wyoming Population 2018
573,720
Montana Population 2018
1,062,330
North Dakota Population 2018
755,238
South Dakota Population 2018
877,790
Idaho Population 2018
1,753,860
Nebraska Population 2018
1,932,549
how many more 'flyover' states would I have to list, just to equal that one county in California?
----------------------------------------- and? What's your point? Are the people of Wyoming (Montana, Dakotas, etc) somehow "worth more" than people elsewhere?
What, are Los Angelinos somehow "subhuman"?
Isn't that revealing.
neither.
But, you seem to believe that ONE city is more important than FOUR states.
and it isn't
Something even the Founding Fathers were aware of.
They didn't want NY, VA and Penn ruling the country.
Why do you want Ca and NY ruling the country?
What you are not thinking of, though, is, what if, of those 10 million, about 5.5 million voted for candidate A, the other 4.5 million plus the votes of those other states voted for candidate B. Likely will never happen, but if they did, cali could erase the votes of the other half of cali, plus those other states.Yep, without the EC small population states have not business participating in presidential elections... To do so it would be a feel good charade, meaningless in every way.We have indeed had this discussion before, for two hundred years. Once the WTA ("winner take all") format started snowballing one of the Electoral College's champions, James Madison, called for a Constitutional Amendment that would ban that practice, even though it would have cost his home state of Virginia. So the discussion goes back at least that far.
The Electoral College was invented to act as a buffer between an electorate that was either uninformed about candidates due to the technological limitations of the time, or easily misled by a huckster, in order to subject the decision to better judgment. It was also tweaked to allot extra power to the slave states by counting their slave populations at the negotiated rate of 3/5 of a person (which persons received 0/5 of a vote), which was called "Slave Power".
Obviously technology has changed, slave states no longer exist, and various states have enacted clearly unConstitutional laws requiring their electors to vote WTA regardless of hucksters or better judgments. Today there's only one other country that elects its head of state which does so by indirect method, which is Pakistan.
The Electoral College needs to go literally yesterday. All it does is create the artificial bullshit divisive entities of "red states", "blue states" and "battleground states", none of which would exist without the WTA/EC; in so doing it perpetuates the Duopoly and ensures no third party will ever gain traction; it throws away the votes of millions as pointless, removing the incentive for most people to vote at all, resulting in abysmal turnout; and it ensures that "solid" states taken for granted will never see a candidate; and it makes the electorate dependent on polls to find out whether it's even worth getting out of bed on election day to vote at all. Because for most voters, it isn't.
Either of you klowns want to tell the class what exactly is "funny" about that post?
Where is any of it inaccurate?
WillHaftawaite theHawk
It's simplistic.
When you have cities that have more votes than some states, the states lose
the populations of, I believe, 12 states, could determine the presidency, and the direction of the country in every election year.
Not very 'democratic' in my opinion.
'Flyover' country has as much right and as much say, as those states with larger populations on the coasts.
The point is moot anyway.
'flyover' country will never agree to getting rid of the EC
Los Angeles County, California's estimated population is 10,163,507
Wyoming Population 2018
573,720
Montana Population 2018
1,062,330
North Dakota Population 2018
755,238
South Dakota Population 2018
877,790
Idaho Population 2018
1,753,860
Nebraska Population 2018
1,932,549
how many more 'flyover' states would I have to list, just to equal that one county in California?
Screw popular vote
LolYep, without the EC small population states have not business participating in presidential elections... To do so it would be a feel good charade, meaningless in every way.It's simplistic.
When you have cities that have more votes than some states, the states lose
the populations of, I believe, 12 states, could determine the presidency, and the direction of the country in every election year.
Not very 'democratic' in my opinion.
'Flyover' country has as much right and as much say, as those states with larger populations on the coasts.
The point is moot anyway.
'flyover' country will never agree to getting rid of the EC
Los Angeles County, California's estimated population is 10,163,507
Wyoming Population 2018
573,720
Montana Population 2018
1,062,330
North Dakota Population 2018
755,238
South Dakota Population 2018
877,790
Idaho Population 2018
1,753,860
Nebraska Population 2018
1,932,549
how many more 'flyover' states would I have to list, just to equal that one county in California?
----------------------------------------- and? What's your point? Are the people of Wyoming (Montana, Dakotas, etc) somehow "worth more" than people elsewhere?
What, are Los Angelinos somehow "subhuman"?
Isn't that revealing.
neither.
But, you seem to believe that ONE city is more important than FOUR states.
and it isn't
Something even the Founding Fathers were aware of.
They didn't want NY, VA and Penn ruling the country.
Why do you want Ca and NY ruling the country?
Actually you're wrong -- they did indeed want Virginia running the country; that's why they awarded its EVs in the amount of 3/5 of their slaves to bloat its influence.
Don't believe me? Check it out.
George Washington ---- Virginia. Slaveowner. Two terms.
John Adams --- Massachusetts. Non slaveowner. One term.
Thomas Jefferson --- Virginia. Slaveowner. Two terms.
James Madison --- Virginia. Slaveowner. Two terms.
James Monroe --- Virginia. Slaveowner. Two terms.
That's eight of the first nine Administrations from Virginia, which had extra EVs because of counting slaves.
Ever wonder why we were all taught in school that all these guys were from Virginia yet they never told us WHY they were from Virginia? Whelp ---- I just did.
Those larger populations are due to the old unlimited SALT acting as a subsidy.
One of the key reasons these Hollywood dirtbags hate Trump. They mock the rest of the country and the Country Bumpkin as they exploit the nation to pay for their overpriced homes and taxes.
Nice foul mouth.LolYep, without the EC small population states have not business participating in presidential elections... To do so it would be a feel good charade, meaningless in every way.
Los Angeles County, California's estimated population is 10,163,507
Wyoming Population 2018
573,720
Montana Population 2018
1,062,330
North Dakota Population 2018
755,238
South Dakota Population 2018
877,790
Idaho Population 2018
1,753,860
Nebraska Population 2018
1,932,549
how many more 'flyover' states would I have to list, just to equal that one county in California?
----------------------------------------- and? What's your point? Are the people of Wyoming (Montana, Dakotas, etc) somehow "worth more" than people elsewhere?
What, are Los Angelinos somehow "subhuman"?
Isn't that revealing.
neither.
But, you seem to believe that ONE city is more important than FOUR states.
and it isn't
Something even the Founding Fathers were aware of.
They didn't want NY, VA and Penn ruling the country.
Why do you want Ca and NY ruling the country?
Actually you're wrong -- they did indeed want Virginia running the country; that's why they awarded its EVs in the amount of 3/5 of their slaves to bloat its influence.
Don't believe me? Check it out.
George Washington ---- Virginia. Slaveowner. Two terms.
John Adams --- Massachusetts. Non slaveowner. One term.
Thomas Jefferson --- Virginia. Slaveowner. Two terms.
James Madison --- Virginia. Slaveowner. Two terms.
James Monroe --- Virginia. Slaveowner. Two terms.
That's eight of the first nine Administrations from Virginia, which had extra EVs because of counting slaves.
Ever wonder why we were all taught in school that all these guys were from Virginia yet they never told us WHY they were from Virginia? Whelp ---- I just did.
There would be no United States without the founding fathers...
And original slaveowners in this country where my ancestors… American Indians
so take your fucking political correctness and shove it up your fucking ass
LolNice foul mouth.LolLos Angeles County, California's estimated population is 10,163,507
Wyoming Population 2018
573,720
Montana Population 2018
1,062,330
North Dakota Population 2018
755,238
South Dakota Population 2018
877,790
Idaho Population 2018
1,753,860
Nebraska Population 2018
1,932,549
how many more 'flyover' states would I have to list, just to equal that one county in California?
----------------------------------------- and? What's your point? Are the people of Wyoming (Montana, Dakotas, etc) somehow "worth more" than people elsewhere?
What, are Los Angelinos somehow "subhuman"?
Isn't that revealing.
neither.
But, you seem to believe that ONE city is more important than FOUR states.
and it isn't
Something even the Founding Fathers were aware of.
They didn't want NY, VA and Penn ruling the country.
Why do you want Ca and NY ruling the country?
Actually you're wrong -- they did indeed want Virginia running the country; that's why they awarded its EVs in the amount of 3/5 of their slaves to bloat its influence.
Don't believe me? Check it out.
George Washington ---- Virginia. Slaveowner. Two terms.
John Adams --- Massachusetts. Non slaveowner. One term.
Thomas Jefferson --- Virginia. Slaveowner. Two terms.
James Madison --- Virginia. Slaveowner. Two terms.
James Monroe --- Virginia. Slaveowner. Two terms.
That's eight of the first nine Administrations from Virginia, which had extra EVs because of counting slaves.
Ever wonder why we were all taught in school that all these guys were from Virginia yet they never told us WHY they were from Virginia? Whelp ---- I just did.
There would be no United States without the founding fathers...
And original slaveowners in this country where my ancestors… American Indians
so take your fucking political correctness and shove it up your fucking ass
Indian ancestry?
Obviously zero college
