The US Citizen comment was an attempt to add a little humor, since I understand that you live there. And, I don't recall ever saying the Electoral College was not legal, but just a reminder that the popular vote indicated a difference in preference for the next US President. But, why would it be correct to remove any state from the equation? I picked two states won by DJT that together represented a similar electoral vote count total as California, to illustrate how the popular vote count could be adjusted by picking certain states. I did not spend a lot of time comparing numbers, but I believe that by picking and choosing, the removal of certain states that together could represent a similar population and/or electoral vote total, can alter the popular vote perspective. It was Mr Jamieson, not I, that wanted to illustrate what changes in popular vote count occurred by removing a large voter state that was won by HRC. Have a great afternoon!
I fail to see your logic. Nobody "removed" California from the election. Clinton's failure is due to her not winning the POPULAR VOTE in enough states...not by a long-shot. Even so, as the analysts kept reminding us, Clinton had a very large advantage this cycle going in and before a singe vote was cast. But, it is what it is.
By the way, we are NOT "America," per se. That is short-hand. America is continental, consisting of North, Central and South.
However, we are The UNITED STATES of America.
Let's do it this way:
Imagine an electoral college that assigns only one electoral college vote for each state period. Trump appears to have won 30 states so he gets 30 electoral college votes. Clinton appears to have won 20 states plus the District of Columbia for a total of 21 so she gets 21 electoral college votes.
In such a scenario, he wins because he won the popular vote in the majority of STATES (30 - 21).
However, this still would not be fair even though he would have won the majority of POPULAR VOTES in the majority of STATES. So the Founding Fathers decided to "weight" the electoral college according to Congressional Seats, which are based on a state's population. Thus, California gets 55, New York gets 29, etc.
In order to "level the playing field" the Founding Fathers determined that a state that has a huge population should have more electoral college votes than a state with a smaller population, yet not be able to wipe out the votes of much smaller states merely by virtue of the smaller state's population disadvantage.
However, because those largely populated states do, in fact, have a higher population than do the states with fewer citizens, the states with larger populations do get more "votes" (electoral college) than smaller states get, as they should. Larger states also get more Congressional Seats than smaller states. So the number of electoral college votes is directly tied to the number of Congressional Seats for each state. California gets the highest by far with 55. So our population is definitely well represented. Remember we live in a Republic.
Clinton won ALL 55 electoral college votes from California and ALL 29 electoral college votes from New York, the two biggest prizes. And yes, both of those states electoral college votes were counted and awarded to her. She just didn't win the POPULAR VOTE in enough states.
Clinton lost the POPULAR VOTE in 59% of the states.
Bottom line: States Rights Matter.
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- JFK
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep." -- Farewell America (1968)
“The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence." -- JFK
"A wise man can act a fool, but a foolish man can never act wise." -- Unknown
AssassinationOfJFK.net Main Page
AssassinationOfJFK.net Research Forum