View Single Post
  #44  
Old 08-22-2019, 03:32 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post
No. It avoids the problema of a few cities on both coasts determining the results of a federal election. It is exactly the opposite of what you said, it gives more access to minorities.
This is a common right wing trope.. Somehow the logic is that the more land that your voters are spread over, the more your vote ought to count. It's a bunch of crap, and its proponents can't even get the facts straight.

Quote:
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) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country.
Christ. Counties don't vote. Land doesn't vote. It's the people who vote, but this current system gives rural votes much disproportionate power than what they should have.