Clinton won popular vote because of one single state?

[alturic]

That's basically my reaction to the entire stupid as fuck argument that California is responsible for her winning just because someone conveniently drew a line around a large chunk of votes that almost certainly wouldn't be cast another way, even if the lines were drawn any other way. It's about as meaningful as saying, "Someone I didn't like only won because people voted in a way I don't like." Well gee willikers, mister, if we could only exclude everyone who does what you don't like from the country, you'd always get your way. What an amazing revelation! Too bad a lot of people are dumb enough to think it actually matters.

I read his post as "she got 4.3 million more votes than Trump did in california" (which I presume is the biggest disparity of all states) so therefor, she won the popular vote because of said disparity. In other words, take the (if true) 4.3 million votes she got in California subtract say... 3 million votes, just to give her some of them, what do the final numbers come in at?

[Al Gorefiend]

They'll still want to come out to rural areas at least to avoid the label of "big city elitist." If they do have an incentive to help 100 people more than they do to help 10, we shouldn't be fixing that by giving some people 3 times as much voting power. 15% more I could understand, but such a large gap was never intended when the EC was made.

I think the EC's intention was protecting the interests of low-population states while offshooting the echo-chamber of big cities.

The population of Los Angeles is 3.8 million, the entire state of Wyoming's population is barely 1/6th of that. If all votes were equal across the country it'd be a real waste of time and jet fuel to even consider visiting Wyoming during an election campaign. And realistically, if all votes were equal they'd be bunny hopping between the 10 biggest cities in America. Because if you got even half of Los Angeles to vote for you, you just got more votes than winning the absolute entirety of Wyoming, North Dakota and Alaska combined

[dd614]

It all just shows how Cuckfornia values are out of line with the majority of America. California is well on its way to becoming a Latin American banana republic. As soon as the rich liberal whites get sick of it and move to Colorado to fuck up that state, California will fall apart. They can let in all the Guatemalans, Hondurans, etc and be as diverse as they want as long as it doesn't turn America into Nortenoland.

[Belize]

I think the EC's intention was protecting the interests of low-population states while offshooting the echo-chamber of big cities.

The population of Los Angeles is 3.8 million, the entire state of Wyoming's population is barely 1/6th of that. If all votes were equal across the country it'd be a real waste of time and jet fuel to even consider visiting Wyoming during an election campaign. And realistically, if all votes were equal they'd be bunny hopping between the 10 biggest cities in America. Because if you got even half of Los Angeles to vote for you, you just got more votes than Wyoming, North Dakota, Maine and Alaska combined

Is anyone even visiting Wyoming, Alaska, and North Dakota during normal elections..?

[Draco-Onis]

I think the EC's intention was protecting the interests of low-population states while offshooting the echo-chamber of big cities.

Wait you are saying isolated rural towns are not echo chambers? get off your high horse California which conservatives love to demonized so much almost 40% of the votes did not go to Clinton. The low population states don't set the national agenda, they have no power to do so . I always find it laughable people who idolize these small towns but somehow are ok with ignoring millions of people because they are evil big city folks.

[Al Gorefiend]

Is anyone even visiting Wyoming, Alaska, and North Dakota during normal elections..?

Skiers, I... guess?

[NineSpine]

But then, what incentive do politicians have to visit Cheyenne when they can just visit Los Angeles to reach 10x the amount of attendance?

Why should an individual in Cheyenne matter more than an individual in Los Angeles?

[Draco-Onis]

It all just shows how Cuckfornia values are out of line with the majority of America. California is well on its way to becoming a Latin American banana republic. As soon as the rich liberal whites get sick of it and move to Colorado to fuck up that state, California will fall apart. They can let in all the Guatemalans, Hondurans, etc and be as diverse as they want as long as it doesn't turn America into Nortenoland.

Yea all those dam liberal 4 million republicans who voted for Trump in California.....

[Sky High]

fucking hell this is still a debate? who cares? people voted for clinton in other states. FFS, even in the democratic firewall Trump only inched out a win in those states.

[Belize]

Skiers, I... guess?

Wyoming and ND are pretty flat IIRC.

I guess I'm just a little confused with people complaining that candidates would only focus on certain states... Since that's already what's happening. *shrug*

[NineSpine]

It all just shows how Cuckfornia values are out of line with the majority of America. California is well on its way to becoming a Latin American banana republic. As soon as the rich liberal whites get sick of it and move to Colorado to fuck up that state, California will fall apart. They can let in all the Guatemalans, Hondurans, etc and be as diverse as they want as long as it doesn't turn America into Nortenoland.

Is that why California is an economic powerhouse despite having a middle of the road effective tax rate? Is that why California is funneling huge amounts of tax money into the federal government for little benefit, so that the federal government can keep propping up failed red states?

- - - Updated - - -

I think the EC's intention was protecting the interests of low-population states while offshooting the echo-chamber of big cities.

The population of Los Angeles is 3.8 million, the entire state of Wyoming's population is barely 1/6th of that. If all votes were equal across the country it'd be a real waste of time and jet fuel to even consider visiting Wyoming during an election campaign. And realistically, if all votes were equal they'd be bunny hopping between the 10 biggest cities in America. Because if you got even half of Los Angeles to vote for you, you just got more votes than winning the absolute entirety of Wyoming, North Dakota and Alaska combined

You do realize the argument you are making is "Yeah, but then they'd have to appeal to MORE people!" Somehow, you are turning that into a negative.

[Sky High]

Is that why California is an economic powerhouse despite having a middle of the road effective tax rate? Is that why California is funneling huge amounts of tax money into the federal government for little benefit, so that the federal government can keep propping up failed red states?

is that why CA is one of the largest food distributers in the world? ignorance, nothing but ignorance.

[Al Gorefiend]

Wait you are saying isolated rural towns are not echo chambers? get off your high horse California which conservatives love to demonized so much almost 40% of the votes did not go to Clinton. The low population states don't set the national agenda, they have no power to do so . I always find it laughable people who idolize these small towns but somehow are ok with ignoring millions of people because they are evil big city folks.

Focus your bitching to someone else, bub. No idea how you misconstrued my post as dissing California and getting butt hurt about it, considering I'm a big city inhabitant myself. LA has a big population, fact.

- - - Updated - - -

Is that why California is an economic powerhouse despite having a middle of the road effective tax rate? Is that why California is funneling huge amounts of tax money into the federal government for little benefit, so that the federal government can keep propping up failed red states?

- - - Updated - - -



You do realize the argument you are making is "Yeah, but then they'd have to appeal to MORE people!" Somehow, you are turning that into a negative.

No kidding. Yet there are numerous red states that vote more overwhelmingly in favor of Republicans than California votes in favor of Democrats, but because people divided them into many states instead of drawing a single line around all of them, nobody thinks to fixate on them to imply their votes are less legitimate than the rest of the nation's, even though the only consequence of that division is they have more power in the electoral college than if they were all combined.

- - - Updated - - -



Instead they just "bunny hop" between the 10 biggest cities in the swing states. You guys are fucking delusional about the reality of how the EC works. It just creates safe zones that candidates can safely ignore (like all of those small states you were just saying you wanted to protect) because they're too skewed in one direction or the other to be worth fighting over for a measly 3 electoral votes.

I'm not defending the EC. Am I coming across that way? I'm saying what its intent was, not that it's a good system whatsoever.

[McFuu]

Is that why California is an economic powerhouse despite having a middle of the road effective tax rate? Is that why California is funneling huge amounts of tax money into the federal government for little benefit, so that the federal government can keep propping up failed red states?

- - - Updated - - -



You do realize the argument you are making is "Yeah, but then they'd have to appeal to MORE people!" Somehow, you are turning that into a negative.

Why do people use this argument for California? It's a huge state with multiple major cities and various forms of commerce from industrial, farming, tech, tourism, etc... If I combine the tri-state area (NY, NJ, PENN) they beat California's GDP by a fair margin, 2.4 trillion vs 2.7 trillion. When combining that land area NJ, NY, and Penn are also still smaller than California. So really California isn't pulling its weight as much as you think.

[NineSpine]

Why do people use this argument for California? It's a huge state with multiple major cities and various forms of commerce from industrial, farming, tech, tourism, etc... If I combine the tri-state area (NY, NJ, PENN) they beat California's GDP by a fair margin, 2.4 trillion vs 2.7 trillion. When combining that land area NJ, NY, and Penn are also still smaller than California. So really California isn't pulling its weight as much as you think.

Land area is immaterial. Those three states combined have a slightly higher population than California, and it isn't really a shocker that New York City is driving massive GDP. I'm not sure the point you are trying to make. The two most liberal of those three states are giver states that help fund the federal government, and the most conservative one, PA, is a moocher state.

[Al Gorefiend]

Yes, it sounds that way, given that you are repeating the same tired pro-EC argument everyone else uses.

Oh my bad. I think the system is garbage like anyone else. I just think the population distribution in the US made a system like the EC inevitable, regardless of its fairness, since a politician could *potentially* win the White House having only visited 4 states.

I mean yeah maybe its just hyperbolic to assume a candidate would only bother with high population density areas and leave low pop citizens in the dark. But since 99.999% of people get their info about a candidate from the TV or Internet I wonder why politicians still travel the country in the first place.

[alexkeren]

I really need to stop visiting this board, the incredible amount of stupidity displayed is astounding.

The bottom line is that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. It was not because of California, it was because MORE AMERICANS voted for her.

If the US was NOT a Democratic Republic than your all caps uninformed response *might* matter, as it stands the US Constitution says otherwise.

[Gestopft]

Oh my bad. I think the system is garbage like anyone else. I just think the population distribution in the US made a system like the EC inevitable, regardless of its fairness, since a politician could *potentially* win the White House having only visited 4 states.

It takes the 11 or so most populous states to equal half of the country. Since it would be next to impossible for a candidate to get all of those votes (or as near as matters) in all of those 11 states, candidates would have to branch out well past those 11 to reach more voters.

Maybe it's just that I live in a "safe" state, but I don't personally understand the big deal about whether or not your state gets a visit. I can see what they are saying all over the country on TV or internet. How I feel about their policies has nothing to do with whether or not they visited me and promised something. I mean- I "get it," but I just don't get it.

[Zyster]

It's been pointed out several times on the ridiculous nature of the voting laws in California on top of the fact myself proved the other day that the amount of half of republicans didn't even vote in California. Let the falsified claims continue on who won the popular vote without full representation of the country.... OH wait, we did, the EC. They voted Trump.

[McFuu]

Land area is immaterial. Those three states combined have a slightly higher population than California, and it isn't really a shocker that New York City is driving massive GDP. I'm not sure the point you are trying to make. The two most liberal of those three states are giver states that help fund the federal government, and the most conservative one, PA, is a moocher state.

Land area isn't immaterial when that land area can cover multiple natural resources or houses different industries. If I cut up California into 3-4 states it wouldn't be all sunshine a roses in those states. And what does the bolded even mean? I'm literally making the argument that it isn't surprising that California has a high GDP considering its size, development, and access to resources. But you can brush off NY having a high GDP as well?

I'm saying your argument is flawed simply because luck-of-the-draw isn't an accurate measure for states GDP. Not every state can win the natural resource lottery when it comes to development. States near coastlines naturally have it better, no one would care about silicon valley if it were in Nebraska. If California were named Alabama and run entirely by Republicans it would have the same GDP. A states political affiliation has nothing to do with it's ability to make money.

Then you dive off into population which California comes out 10th (9 not counting DC) gdp per capita. It's all meaning really. Regardless of if a state makes out ahead or not, it has way more to do with the state, not the people governing the state.