Txdigest.com

A 39 second (slow reader)Must Read

In their infinite wisdom, the United States’ founders created the Electoral College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented. Why should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?

The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the Internet. It should finally put an end to the argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense.

Do share this. It needs to be widely known and understood.

There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

Trump won 3,084 of them.

Clinton won 57.

There are 62 counties in New York State.

Trump won 46 of them.

Clinton won 16.

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.) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our country!

But that 319 square miles are where the majority of our nation’s problems foment.

Ric, you really have to stop using logic.

Thanks Ric !!

What you are saying is a small slice of Americans should be able to 'trump' the obvious will of the nation.

I dunno, maybe that is better. But this time a few votes in two NE states would have brought about a very
different result.

I'm NOT having trouble getting over the election... I do have a problem with Ric's trying to suggest that the
result was something it clearly was not. It is not a sensible explanation for our national election problems.

I have concern for all groups of Americans too, but I don't think there's any sense in saying that that the
clear loser of the democratic process should become the winner "just because ..."

It still is hard to get away with saying ... "The will of the people is not as important as the means by
which that will is sought and understood."

ralph wrote:Thanks Ric !!

Yes.

Ric wrote:A 39 second (slow reader)Must Read


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.) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our country!

But that 319 square miles are where the majority of our nation’s problems foment.

Whoa, big guy. What you are saying is where people clump or don't clump is what makes their vote count or by which it should count. What you are saying is smaller states are wiser (may be right) than metro area clumping.

We need to find out which states are small enough not to count too much and count those votes rather than one-man-one vote experience. Ottumwa's votes are better than Manhattan's votes. Soon we will be able to hold national elections in the suburbs of Boise or the flats of Asheville. Or Huntington, or Itasca.

Why not elect candidates to 10 year terms (because it's so hard to set up for voting in a small town). We could probably satisfy our electoral processes by using fewer than 500 voters.

IF you are going to say that thousands of voters in Chicago are characterized by a point of view, and vote their consciences they are obviously less 'franchised' than any number of voters in flyover USA. Is that whatchur saying?

Yes, I believe it is.

Founders made us a Constitutional Republic and not just a democracy for good reasons.

John in Plano wrote:Founders made us a Constitutional Republic and not just a democracy for good reasons.

So, someone who happens to live in a state with fewer people deserves t‏heir vote count more than a person who lives in a more populous state? Why?

John in Plano wrote:Founders made us a Constitutional Republic and not just a democracy for good reasons.

And why is that?

What's the reason?

Yes..thanks, Ric..and you're right on the money.

mayhem wrote:

John in Plano wrote:Founders made us a Constitutional Republic and not just a democracy for good reasons.

And why is that?

What's the reason?

Figure it out yourself.

planosteve wrote:

John in Plano wrote:Founders made us a Constitutional Republic and not just a democracy for good reasons.

So, someone who happens to live in a state with fewer people deserves t‏heir vote count more than a person who lives in a more populous state? Why?

It’s not about some ONE..it’s about all fifty states.

But a more populous state DOES count more.

John in Plano wrote:Founders made us a Constitutional Republic and not just a democracy for good reasons.

I agree.

Clinton won 487 counties. Trump still won the vast majority, but 57 is fake news.

John in Plano wrote:

mayhem wrote:

John in Plano wrote:Founders made us a Constitutional Republic and not just a democracy for good reasons.

And why is that?

What's the reason?

Figure it out yourself.

LUMPKIN, I wrote thataway for a specific purpose which is: I wondered if you COULD dredge up an answer. As you have said: figures.

grouchy wrote:

John in Plano wrote:Founders made us a Constitutional Republic and not just a democracy for good reasons.

I agree.

When the framers were framing most of them were farmers. The voters went back to farming (what few of them who could vote) and the framers sipped juleps on the veranda. The EC was made for the 1700s and following. They prolly be stunned at the development of the elections. And they would have hated it. I feel NO need to maintain their machinations ... one woman one vote.

The world and the country have changed. The EC was intended to function in that mileu ... it's a broken clapsdoodle in this.

Now. Take on that JiP and Ric. You still haven't made the effort to answer my questions. Yep, there are some more answers in there and you know it.

GFB wrote:

planosteve wrote:

John in Plano wrote:Founders made us a Constitutional Republic and not just a democracy for good reasons.

So, someone who happens to live in a state with fewer people deserves t‏heir vote count more than a person who lives in a more populous state? Why?

It’s not about some ONE..it’s about all fifty states.

But a more populous state DOES count more.

Well, it's supposed to be about all fifty states. That's the goldarned point.

mayhem wrote:

grouchy wrote:

John in Plano wrote:Founders made us a Constitutional Republic and not just a democracy for good reasons.

I agree.

When the framers were framing most of them were farmers. The voters went back to farming (what few of them who could vote) and the framers sipped juleps on the veranda. The EC was made for the 1700s and following. They prolly be stunned at the development of the elections. And they would have hated it. I feel NO need to maintain their machinations ... one woman one vote.

The world and the country have changed. The EC was intended to function in that mileu ... it's a broken clapsdoodle in this.

Now. Take on that JiP and Ric. You still haven't made the effort to answer my questions. Yep, there are some more answers in there and you know it.

One woman one vote?

That would certainly stun them.

The Constitution is as close to human perfection as it gets..

..anything that no longer works or is no longer wanted..can be amended away.