task0778
Diamond Member
So under your model, Montana gets an increase of 2 Reps but California gets 52 more Reps (105 is up 52 from the current 53). The most populous states would get the most new Reps, wouldn't they? Gee, I wonder which party benefits the most from that?
I don't think anything will improve your attitude towards anyone who disagrees with you.
Okay boys and girls, it's time for elementary school math class!
Today we're going to talk about why task0778 is a raging dumbfuck. Turn to pay 217 in your textbook.
You're going to see two fractions. I want you to tell which fraction is bigger. Here's the first problem.
53/435 and 105/870. Which number is bigger?
task0778: 105/870.
No, that is incorrect.
task0778: B-but, both the numbers are bigger.
Yes, but that's not how fractions work. The second fraction is made up of more pieces, and it might have more pieces, but those pieces are smaller. So 105 pieces in the second fraction still equal less than the first fraction.
task0778: B-but, both the numbers are bigger.
Yes, well, smoking and drinking during pregnancy is dangerous. Let's go on to the next problem. 1/435 and 3/870.
task0778: They're the same.
And there we have it, everyone! Big, giant idiot votes without an understanding of grade school level math.
Yes, well, smoking and drinking during pregnancy is dangerous. Let's go on to the next problem. 1/435 and 3/870.
task0778: They're the same.
Did I say that? NOOO, of course not. So we have the Lib/Dem once again spouting another lie. You're real good at putting words in someone else's mouth that they didn't say, what is it they tell us about stats and numbers? Figures don't lie but liars can figure. You fall into the latter category.
You can take your fractions and stick 'em where the sun don't shine. You are going to increase California's Reps by 52 and Montana's by 2. So, how many more Reps will Wyoming get? One? Maybe? Cherrypick much? You are not fooling anyone with your BS, you simply want more Reps from the big population states to re-engineer the Electoral College so it's more favorable to the Dems. You don't give a shit about better representation, you only care about getting Dems elected to the WH. You just don't have the integrity to admit it. Since we know you're not smart enough to figure this out for yourself, why don't you provide the link to where you got the idea from.
So you have a problem with democracy...
Uh, no. Care to explain how you arrived at that conclusion? We've already got a democracy, bro.
You want one set Americans to have more votes in Congress per voter than another....
What's wrong with every Americans having equal representation? It is not democracy when you have a vote but one set are given more say than another...
They have votes in China too...
So, you are actually trying to back into another call for doing away with the Electoral College and just going with the popular vote. That's fine, I don't agree with that but that's why we already have a democracy in place, you get to have your say and I get to have mine and our elected reps vote on whatever changes are proposed. Which definitely IS a democracy, you just don't like the current version of it.
As for China, you do realize that point is ridiculous, right? Their elections are nothing but show, the winner is already known. Which is obviously not the case here.