The online radicalism of young white men and boys.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I know you are but what am I.

Right, the difference being:

46.1% vs. 48.2%

I know 3 million seems like a very large number to you. It's hard to wrap your mind around it, right? But the US has a lot of people in it. 2.1% is not that big of a difference at all.

Of course, of course. But Tulsa is in the top 10 list of LGBT cities so there's 1 out of 2 for you. I'll be back to point out how you don't understand statistics, later.

Stop stating facts, you posted next to someone with the word racism in their name.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
This is true but it was the largest popular vote margin of all time with significance at all p value levels.

This is quite the weird red herring. I don't think anyone is buying it. You can try but you won't be able to ignore 46.1% of the voting population in favor of 48.2% of it.

And if you love statistics so much, throw out the 2 outlier states from each side (for a total of 4 states thrown out) because they skew the results, quite clearly.

Guess what happens? Trump wins the popular vote by 8 million votes. 🙂

Perhaps you should stop peddling your red herrings?

Which states are outliers? Please don't say California and New York for the Dems.

Originally posted by Robtard
Which states are outliers?

Nebraska, West Virginia for Trump.

New York and California for Hillary.

NE - 495,961 for Trump
WV - 489,371 for Trump

NY - 4,556,124 for Clinton
Ca - 8,753,788 for Clinton

You're removing Clinton's two largest wins and two of Trump's smallest wins out of the equation. That heavily favors Trump.

this is what happens when privileged westerners think "free speech" is more important than the safety of disabled, LGBTQ+, PoC's and womyn

Originally posted by Robtard
NE - 495,961 for Trump
WV - 489,371 for Trump

NY - 4,556,124 for Clinton
Ca - 8,753,788 for Clinton

You're removing Clinton's two largest wins and two of Trump's smallest wins out of the equation. That heavily favors Trump.

No, I am not. I am removing the two extremes from each side.

It just so happens that NY and CA are so extreme that they become the outliers. Eliminate those two states and you have a huge difference in outcome.

Why do 2 states get to have so much say? Keep in mind, we are not a democracy.

Because a lot of people live in those states.

Originally posted by BackFire
Because a lot of people live in those states.

And that is what makes the EC so great, coequal governance in the Senate among states and the House of Representatives is for those hugely popular states without stepping on the rest of the US 😄

The EC is a pile of shit and everyone knows it, some refuse to openly acknowledge this since it favors their side in elections so they're content with winning via a rigged system. Little different than the gerrymandering some Red states employ to win where they normally wouldn't.

How many have the Conjobs really won by it?

And why couldn't it work in the Demons favor?

Originally posted by Robtard
The EC is a pile of shit and everyone knows it, some refuse to openly acknowledge this since it favors their side in elections so they're content with winning via a rigged system. Little different than the gerrymandering some Red states employ to win where they normally wouldn't.

Nah, all the moderates and libertarians I talk to (I talk to lots of people, so many, believe me) really like the EC.

And the EC has worked in the Dems favor, too.

People are mad that NY and CA didn't get to decide the election. That's all. 🙂

Originally posted by Robtard
The EC is a pile of shit and everyone knows it, some refuse to openly acknowledge this since it favors their side in elections so they're content with winning via a rigged system. Little different than the gerrymandering some Red states employ to win where they normally wouldn't.

I mean if you hate the EC so much because it's rigged you must despise the fact that California has picked up more seats in Congress then any other state by illegal immigration and redistricting based on total population.

Originally posted by cdtm
How many have the Conjobs really won by it?

And why couldn't it work in the Demons favor?

Five presidential nominees who won popular vote but lost the election

tl;dr version: It doesn't favor the Dems

Originally posted by snowdragon
I mean if you hate the EC so much because it's rigged you must despise the fact that California has picked up more seats in Congress then any other state by illegal immigration and redistricting based on total population.

You and your fake news about illegal immigrants. Stop.

But I'm against all rigged election regardless of you it helps.

Originally posted by Robtard
Five presidential nominees who won popular vote but lost the election

tl;dr version: It doesn't favor the Dems

It's absolutely inherently corrupt and favors one party more. Absolutely. Period.

Say it with me, no more EC, one citizen = one vote; the most votes wins.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's absolutely inherently corrupt and favors one party more. Absolutely. Period.

Say it with me, no more EC, one citizen = one vote; the most votes wins.

Originally posted by Robtard
You and your fake news about illegal immigrants. Stop.

But I'm against all rigged election regardless of you it helps.

You either just flat out don't know how it works or you're just playing that card where someone makes a factual comment about how our system works and you play dumb.

The distribution of seats in the House is referred to as apportionment, which is based on states total population and includes illegal immigrants. A national census is taken every 10 years to apportion seats in the House, but as CIS reported, the Constitution offers no method for apportionment, nor a method for compiling total population for apportionment. Currently, the resident population includes illegal aliens.

Illegal immigration played a significant role in the redistribution of seats in the past. In 1990, 12 seats were redistributed, and in 2000, 16 seats were redistributed. Louisiana was one of the states adversely affected.

In 2000, four states either lost a seat or didnt gain a seat they otherwise would have, and five states had one seat fewer than it otherwise would have.

Five states actually gained seats because of illegal aliens. Nine redistributed seats went to California alone.

CBS News

Then we have a decision by the supreme court:

A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday that illegal immigrants and other noncitizens can be counted when states draw their legislative districts, shooting down a challenge by Texas residents who said their own voting power was being diluted.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the court, said even though only eligible voters are supposed to cast ballots, elected officials represent all people within their districts, and it is that act of representation, not the election itself, that the boundaries are drawn to.

By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Monday, April 4, 2016

The EC can be fixed, just have a computer create the districts. No more cracking and packing. 84% of the us population resides in urbanized areas mostly on the coasts and no one wants that to be the most important factor when the us has a culture not defined simply by the coasts. The way it's supposed to work coequal.

@Snow and goob

We've already had this convo and I demolished both of you. There's no reason why a citizen in Colorado vote carries more voting power than a citizen in California as an example. We're all Americans, should be my vote has as much as yours, yours has as much as quan's, quans has as much as DDM's etc. Citizen equality in voting. Period.