Correction:Trump Took- 2,626-Hillary Took 487 counties/That's Right 2,626 To 487//5 to 1 Trump

a reply to: Christosterone

Well...a majority of Americans voted against Trump so, yeah...his approval ratings are already pretty low.

Not so coincidentally, Obama's approval ratings are high.

Even with LA and NY - take away the illegal votes (undocumented immigrants, dead people, etc) and Trump would win the popular vote. Why do you think the liberal leaders are all for amnesty? Thankfully the EC exists for a very good reason.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Annee
Give it a rest.

It doesn't mean anything.

Los Angeles County alone has 10,170,292 people.

You're not from around here , er ya ? Else you would know the Constitution says it does...via the electoral college...

I'm fully aware of the EC.

I'm not the one comparing counties to population.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Annee
Give it a rest.

It doesn't mean anything.

Los Angeles County alone has 10,170,292 people.

You're not from around here , er ya ? Else you would know the Constitution says it does...via the electoral college...

I'm fully aware of the EC.

I'm not the one comparing counties to population.

And , by those words , you still show a great ignorance of the Constitution and the election process of the US.

I did some additional research the other night and made I spreadsheet. I don't have it now bc I'm on the subway going to work.

I found that when looking at States that went Hilllary, just comparing amount of counties that Trump won to those that Hillary won, Hillary would have won only 5 or less states. Trump overwhelmingly won the majority of counties in most of her states, with Hillary just winning the more populous counties/cities. That's the real story, not this "popular vote" myth.

a reply to: Annee

It does mean something actually. Los Angeles County can barely maintain it's water supply, let alone produce anything for anyone else besides... what... movies? The stupid bigots that voted trump (who weren't stupid bigots when they previously voted Obama twice?) are supposed to supply food to these liberal cities... but not have their votes counted? Liberals are worse than bigots.

The Electoral College should account for population size. The problem is that the House was capped in the number of members it could have, this is the reason states with so little population have more power today then in the past.

originally posted by: bender151
a reply to: Annee

It does mean something actually. Los Angeles County can barely maintain it's water supply, let alone produce anything for anyone else besides... what... movies? The stupid bigots that voted trump (who weren't stupid bigots when they previously voted Obama twice?) are supposed to supply food to these liberal cities... but not have their votes counted? Liberals are worse than bigots.

You do know southern Ca negotiates its own water, right?

You are really clueless about CA.

originally posted by: Pyle
The Electoral College should account for population size. The problem is that the House was capped in the number of members it could have, this is the reason states with so little population have more power today then in the past.

It already does.

For all intents and purposes the Democratic candidate starts with 81 electoral votes guaranteed thanks to California.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Annee
Give it a rest.

It doesn't mean anything.

Los Angeles County alone has 10,170,292 people.

You're not from around here , er ya ? Else you would know the Constitution says it does...via the electoral college...

I'm fully aware of the EC.

I'm not the one comparing counties to population.

And , by those words , you still show a great ignorance of the Constitution and the election process of the US.

No I don't.

Ugh! Too tired to fight back.

This is how I think the Right continues their efforts.

originally posted by: Ohanka

originally posted by: Pyle
The Electoral College should account for population size. The problem is that the House was capped in the number of members it could have, this is the reason states with so little population have more power today then in the past.

It already does.

For all intents and purposes the Democratic candidate starts with 81 electoral votes guaranteed thanks to California.

You mean 55 right because Cali only has 55 EC votes.

originally posted by: Ohanka

originally posted by: Pyle
The Electoral College should account for population size. The problem is that the House was capped in the number of members it could have, this is the reason states with so little population have more power today then in the past.

It already does.

For all intents and purposes the Democratic candidate starts with 81 electoral votes guaranteed thanks to California.

Actually it doesn't, you get more votes per population, but they are not direct equivalencies. It's a slope, that gives less voting power, the more people there are in a state.

Then there is a second way the voting power is diluted by giving states 2 default votes. In many states, these 'default votes' account for enormous percentage of the electorate votes allocated to the state, but for states like California, it's very low. These default votes don't account for population either.

For example MT, ID, ND, SD combine have the exact same population as Iowa, however Iowa has 6 votes, and they together have 12. This example is mostly due to the fact they get 4 sets of default votes.