The true wisdom of the electoral college that the marxists hate.

[Theowl32]

In their infinite wisdom, the United States’ founders created the Electoral College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented. Why should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?

The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the Internet. It should finally put an end to the argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense.

Do share this. It needs to be widely known and understood.

There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

Trump won 3,084 of them.

Clinton won 57.

There are 62 counties in New York State.

Trump won 46 of them.

Clinton won 16.

Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.

In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens)

Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)

Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.

The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our country!

But that 319 square miles are where the majority of our nation’s problems foment.

 

[gipper]

The ruling class would love to eliminate the Electoral College. That would allow them to control elections even more than they do now.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

In their infinite wisdom, the United States’ founders created the Electoral College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented. Why should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?

The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the Internet. It should finally put an end to the argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense.

Do share this. It needs to be widely known and understood.

There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

Trump won 3,084 of them.

Clinton won 57.

There are 62 counties in New York State.

Trump won 46 of them.

Clinton won 16.

Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.

In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens)

Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)

Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.

The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our country!

But that 319 square miles are where the majority of our nation’s problems foment.

While I agree that the EC is the best of any flawed system, I find your "stats" less than compelling. Counties and square miles do not vote, people vote. There is a county in Wy that has less than one person per square mile. That is a lot of empty land that is not voting.

I have not seen a system put forth that is any better than the EC, but it is not without its flaws. The most apparent flaw is that it makes the votes in one part of the country worth more than a vote in a different part of the country.

I think most would agree that it is not really fair that the vote of a person in Wyoming is worth 3.6 times more than the vote of a person in Cali. A vote in 18 states is worth less than 1 vote in the other states. Again, that seems pretty clearly unfair.

But fairness is not really the goal, having the best system is. I think that just the very size and diversity of our country makes no system perfect, but the EC seems the best choice so far.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

In their infinite wisdom, the United States’ founders created the Electoral College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented. Why should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?

The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the Internet. It should finally put an end to the argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense.

Do share this. It needs to be widely known and understood.

There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

Trump won 3,084 of them.

Clinton won 57.

There are 62 counties in New York State.

Trump won 46 of them.

Clinton won 16.

Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.

In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens)

Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)

Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.

The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our country!

But that 319 square miles are where the majority of our nation’s problems foment.

While I agree that the EC is the best of any flawed system, I find your "stats" less than compelling. Counties and square miles do not vote, people vote. There is a county in Wy that has less than one person per square mile. That is a lot of empty land that is not voting.

I have not seen a system put forth that is any better than the EC, but it is not without its flaws. The most apparent flaw is that it makes the votes in one part of the country worth more than a vote in a different part of the country.

I think most would agree that it is not really fair that the vote of a person in Wyoming is worth 3.6 times more than the vote of a person in Cali. A vote in 18 states is worth less than 1 vote in the other states. Again, that seems pretty clearly unfair.

But fairness is not really the goal, having the best system is. I think that just the very size and diversity of our country makes no system perfect, but the EC seems the best choice so far.

Which explains the reason the federal government was never intended to have this much power. It is as supposed to be up to your state. Whether it had one person per mile or hundreds of thousands.

 

[jasonnfree]

Fairly clear thinking thread here, but what good is either of the two systems... electoral or popular vote, if our candidates are chosen by billionaires for the most part, which was the case with clinton and trump. Getting money out of politics, taxpayer funded elections, and prison time for candidates taking bribes like they do now is the only way.

 

[Theowl32]

Fairly clear thinking thread here, but what good is either of the two systems... electoral or popular vote, if our candidates are chosen by billionaires for the most part, which was the case with clinton and trump. Getting money out of politics, taxpayer funded elections, and prison time for candidates taking bribes like they do now is the only way.

Yes, and the main reason the founding fathers (slave owners and THE ONLY thing the left knows) did not say voting was a RIGHT was a similar reason they created the electoral college.

What that means is we have large BLOCKS OF VOTERS that are placated to. They did not want voters casting votes who did have at least a rudimentary understanding of the issues. As a result, we have catch phrases like ROCK THE VOTE. Not learn the issues mind you.

There is also a reason why the word DEMOCRACY does not appear in the constitution or the Declaration of Independence. That, is mob rule, and the greedy powerful politcians are only concerned about one thing. Getting richer and keeping power.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

In their infinite wisdom, the United States’ founders created the Electoral College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented. Why should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?

The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the Internet. It should finally put an end to the argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense.

Do share this. It needs to be widely known and understood.

There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

Trump won 3,084 of them.

Clinton won 57.

There are 62 counties in New York State.

Trump won 46 of them.

Clinton won 16.

Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.

In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens)

Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)

Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.

The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our country!

But that 319 square miles are where the majority of our nation’s problems foment.

While I agree that the EC is the best of any flawed system, I find your "stats" less than compelling. Counties and square miles do not vote, people vote. There is a county in Wy that has less than one person per square mile. That is a lot of empty land that is not voting.

I have not seen a system put forth that is any better than the EC, but it is not without its flaws. The most apparent flaw is that it makes the votes in one part of the country worth more than a vote in a different part of the country.

I think most would agree that it is not really fair that the vote of a person in Wyoming is worth 3.6 times more than the vote of a person in Cali. A vote in 18 states is worth less than 1 vote in the other states. Again, that seems pretty clearly unfair.

But fairness is not really the goal, having the best system is. I think that just the very size and diversity of our country makes no system perfect, but the EC seems the best choice so far.

Which explains the reason the federal government was never intended to have this much power. It is as supposed to be up to your state. Whether it had one person per mile or hundreds of thousands.

On that we agree totally!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com