Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
The number of a States districts = the number of a State's electoral votes. If you win the districts' popular vote, you win that districts' electoral vote. In some States, if you win the majority of districts, you get all the States' electoral votes. In other States, they divvy it up to both candidates.You just provided a link which shows gerrymandering benefited the House. You did not provide one which shows gerrymandering increased Trump's electoral votes.
I don't think you understand how the electoral college process works.
Now this is where it gets messy. Due to hyper-partisan, right-wing gerrymandering, you have a situation where a sparsely populated, mostly republican, rural district, has the same electoral vote as a densely populated, mostly democrat, urban district.
So Trump wins these electoral votes in States, with a minority of the popular vote. Whereas is a non-partisan, gerrymandered State, more electoral votes would be allocated to the more densely populated urban areas. Thus giving more electoral votes to the democratic candidate. And that would've made Hillary the President.
Que pasa, mutha?
The number of a States districts = the number of a State's electoral votes.
You left out the EC votes for each state's 2 senate seats.
If you win the districts' popular vote, you win that districts' electoral vote.
The only 2 states that decide any EC votes by district are Maine(2) and Nebraska(3).
In some States, if you win the majority of districts, you get all the States' electoral votes.
No, no, no. Wrong. No state adds up the "won districts" to see who won the state.
They add up all the votes statewide to see who gets the EC votes.
It's possible to win 52 of California's 53 districts and still lose the state by hundreds of thousands of votes.
So Trump wins these electoral votes in States, with a minority of the popular vote.
Nope. In every state Trump won he had more votes than Hillary.