Fwd: 319 Square Miles

Subject: 319  Square  Miles
This explains the very reason the Electoral College was conceived

I thought you'd find this interesting?

I didn't understand this until now, and it should never be changed.

Please read

A 39 second read you will want to pass on.

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!

And...it's been verified and documented that those aforementioned
ned 319 square miles are where the majority of our nation's problems foment.

Well worth the 39 seconds to read?  Now please pass it!
Might make a "hard copy" handy the next time the subject comes up.


charlie said...

Not true, of course:


And even so, why would it matter if states were represented, rather than people?

States aren't sentient.

People matter. And if more people want Democrats in office, rather than Republicans, then they should have that.

For the past two decades, most people have been voting for Democrats, yet most elected officials are Republicans.

Clearly, the system is flawed, but don't count on Republicans to fix it.

Mr_Creosote said...

I'm surprised that they didn't roll out the map of the US showing large swaths of red in the south/southwest that's supposed to indicate "real 'murka" is red rather than blue.

Of course, land doesn't vote, people do.

Creative Commons License
MyRightWingDad.net is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.