F... US voting bureaucracy

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by Daseal

I don't understand why you're equating land mass to population. If a MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE (aka the welfare crowd as you ignorantly put) want a candidate, why should the less than 2 million people in north dakota have such a big impact?

Take a look at the POPULATION WON on the 2004 map. The candidate that absolutely cleaned house on area won ALSO won the popular vote, proving the system works.

I think you're just bitter that the majority of the nation elected someone you don't like.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by Buster

Take a look at the POPULATION WON on the 2004 map. The candidate that absolutely cleaned house on area won ALSO won the popular vote, proving the system works.

I think you're just bitter that the majority of the nation elected someone you don't like.

Buster although I understand what you are saying, I don't think the argument was brought up in a bias way. I also think you are quick to try to disprove anything that doesn't jive with your political alignment. At least in my opinion you always seem to be aching for an argument and/or yelling match.

Your point is valid in this case, but it could completely be possible that that a candidate wins on area, and not population. I think the point here is we are not all equal based on the electoral system but rather the goal is to balance area. I think that is a huge distinction to that what we are taught in grade school.