Just so you know - more Americans wanted Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump as POTUS

[Colonel Hogan]

But, but, but there are so many people in those little insignifigant blue splotches...why shouldn't they get to tell everyone who has decided to live the hell away from them how to live?

Because that's exactly what everyone agreed to upon joining the union. Land matters. Landowners no longer matter but masses of land matter. If they don't like it they can always quit pretending that was Lincoln did was legal.

Besides the so-called red states which by the way were colored red to detract attention from the collectivist leanings of those in what are now called Stakes tend to be not interested investing Authority with the central government. So the inverse doesn't happen. The farmers don't give a shit what people of the city do or don't do

high definition people in the blue states are very fond of strong central government and strong central government telling every square inch of this country how to live their lives to educate their kids how to protect their land their water in their hair. And frankly those of us in the west are well aware that people in Washington have no idea what is required adequately husband the resources of the Sonoran Desert.

You just don't get it- the people do not elect the President , the States elect a President. Your state gets 55 votes. It doesn't matter if you import 6 million more people into your state, you still only get 55 votes. (Actually, the number would go up somewhat based on population but you're never going to get as many EC votes per population of Wyoming because you are no more important than Wyoming when it comes to determination of the direction this country goes.)

Sorry, buddy, but you are WAY off base with this one. The fact that some states have a greater effective proportional weight of their vote within the Electoral College is a function of the fact that just under 1/5 of Congressional representation is equally distributed among each state's Senators. Furthermore, many states have the same number of electors despite the fact that they don't have identical population size. Therein lies the recipe for non-democratically elected Presidents.

But to take those two facts and arbitrarily declare that "people don't elect a President" or that the votes and motivations of people in inner cities matter LESS because of something as frivolous as land mass is sadly out of touch with reality.

Candidates concentrate campaign resources in a handful of eastern and midwestern states because it is an efficient use of the resources of time and money. It's really that simple. One could also win an election by wining the electoral votes of California, Texas and a handful of other states as well, but it would take more time to cover that territory and execute the strategy.

But PEOPLE STILL most assuredly elect their President because they elect the electors who cast the final votes that ratify the votes cast throughout the various states. The vagaries of the Electoral College have no substantial impact on that fact most of the time. Even if you had a popular vote election, most candidates would campaign the same way. Most people are concentrated east of the Mississippi River. And most people are concentrated in major metropolitan areas.

To use your own example, no candidate is going to aggressively pursue the proportionally greater per person weight of Wyoming's electoral votes because there are only three of those votes up for grabs.

People matter because people vote. Land mass does not vote.

The concerns of urban versus rural voters tend to matter more based primarily on which group votes in greater proportion to the other. Same for women vs. men, blacks and Hispanics vs. whites, and any other demographic or special interest group you'd care to pit against one another.

But nobody is pimping themselves out for votes based on land mass! If they were, they'd never get out of Alaska.

 

[Conager]

Sorry, buddy, but you are WAY off base with this one. The fact that some states have a greater effective proportional weight of their vote within the Electoral College is a function of the fact that just under 1/5 of Congressional representation is equally distributed among each state's Senators. Furthermore, many states have the same number of electors despite the fact that they don't have identical population size. Therein lies the recipe for non-democratically elected Presidents.

But to take those two facts and arbitrarily declare that "people don't elect a President" or that the votes and motivations of people in inner cities matter LESS because of something as frivolous as land mass is sadly out of touch with reality.

Candidates concentrate campaign resources in a handful of eastern and midwestern states because it is an efficient use of the resources of time and money. It's really that simple. One could also win an election by wining the electoral votes of California, Texas and a handful of other states as well, but it would take more time to cover that territory and execute the strategy.

But PEOPLE STILL most assuredly elect their President because they elect the electors who cast the final votes that ratify the votes cast throughout the various states. The vagaries of the Electoral College have no substantial impact on that fact most of the time. Even if you had a popular vote election, most candidates would campaign the same way. Most people are concentrated east of the Mississippi River. And most people are concentrated in major metropolitan areas.

To use your own example, no candidate is going to aggressively pursue the proportionally greater per person weight of Wyoming's electoral votes because there are only three of those votes up for grabs.

People matter because people vote. Land mass does not vote.

The concerns of urban versus rural voters tend to matter more based primarily on which group votes in greater proportion to the other. Same for women vs. men, blacks and Hispanics vs. whites, and any other demographic or special interest group you'd care to pit against one another.

But nobody is pimping themselves out for votes based on land mass! If they were, they'd never get out of Alaska.

Not specifically land mass as in so many square miles get so many votes it doesn't matter if you're a tiny state Rhode Island has the exact same electoral votes I think as Wyoming. I think the least you can get is three if you take all of the states that get 3 votes just for being States those votes add up to a large state. What I mean is more akin to the idea that water rights are mineral rights run with the land. Voting rights run with the land. If you are a state and ou join the union you get three votes. Point being, every state matters and it matters not at all if one state has a lot more people than the others state. States joined the union people did not.

Voters in California and New Yorker would not be whining about this election if they had not vested so much power in the central government that was never supposed to have power in the first place. Now the tables are turned and now all those little States in total get to tell those two big states with massive populations what to do and they have to accept it.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Point being, every state matters and it matters not at all if one state has a lot more people than the others state. States joined the union people did not.

Herein lies the source of our disagreement. Of COURSE it matters if a state has a LOT MORE PEOPLE than another state. If a state has a LOT more people than another state, they are going to have a LOT more Congressional seats in the House of Representatives.

If a state has a FEW more people than another then they may have only one additional representative, or perhaps none at all. That's when and only when it doesn't matter.

 

[Conager]

Herein lies the source of our disagreement. Of COURSE it matters if a state has a LOT MORE PEOPLE than another state. If a state has a LOT more people than another state, they are going to have a LOT more Congressional seats in the House of Representatives.

If a state has a FEW more people than another then they may have only one additional representative, or perhaps none at all. That's when and only when it doesn't matter.

Fortunately, there is a lag, waiting for the census to catch-up.

I suppose there is a possibility that they actually could increase the populations of those cities to the point that they actually could control the entire Electoral College.

I'm kind of hoping that California secedes in 2018.

 

[Disgustipated]

The densest counties are where the best climates of the nation are and those people should be punished.

 

[Wrong Element]

The densest counties are where the best climates of the nation are and those people should be punished.

Can we also punish the densest GBers?

 

[Disgustipated]

Can we also punish the densest GBers?

They live in FL, NM, KS, and AZ. Isn't that punishment enough?

 

[kcrw]

YEAH I KNOW IT SUCKS!! Lets recount, guys 're discussing on http://www.proandkon.com/316/election-2016-recount

 

[pointless]

get fucked.

 

[Disgustipated]

get fucked.

Seriously. Especially because he should be spamming this:

https://www.kcrw.com/music/shows/morning-becomes-eclectic

http://www.kcrw.com/music/shows/morning-becomes-eclectic/latest-show/++theme++kcrw.theme/images/song-covers/default.png

Great program with awesome indie artists.