That was not Roberts. It was some French dude.
I guess Jean Luc Brunel is the red shoe wearing loser in the picture.
That was not Roberts. It was some French dude.
Best of luck to you. I've been fortunate to be employed during this whole ****** year, but being in the steel industry and also part owner of a restaurant my income has dropped 30% from last year.
**** Covid. And **** Tibs.
I had to put on my glasses to see the blue in my state (Oregon) it's so tiny. But yet the blues control the whole ******* state.
Australian news sees what's coming
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NcAO4-o_4Ug" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
This map isn't correct. I live in Dauphin County Pennsylvania (Harrisburg area) and it was called for Joe. This map shows it grey. Erie, Centre, Monroe, Lakawanna, etc all went for Joe but this shows it grey.
Republicans have won the popular vote for the Presidency only once in the past 30 years.
I think it's from 2016, but still misleading as hell, given that 3 million more Americans voted for Clinton.
These generic geographical maps do not even remotely reflect the general electorate, as they do not illustrate population density.
Republicans have won the popular vote for the Presidency only once in the past 30 years.
From your perspective I'm sure that means something, and if rolls were reversed I'd most likely feel the same way, but Constitutionally it means absolutely nothing.
So, are you proposing that the Electoral College isn't a true representation of the American vote? The electoral college isn't perfect by any means, but I feel it is much more of a representation of America as a whole.
The current number of congressmen (435) had been that number for almost 80 years. And that ratio of 4.35 congressmen per Senator has been around since we added the last two states in 1959.
That said, there have been many times in the U.S. history where that ration has fluctuated greatly.... from 3:1 to as high as 5:1. This mostly happened in the 1800's especially as we added states and tried to figure out what worked best.
If you wanted to give more power to the small states (which I am always in favor of)... you get rid of 35 congress seats and reduce it down to 4:1 ratio. At 400 seats, you are looking at one congressman per 825,000 residents. Note that even in this system, there are only 4 states that get "more representation" than the actual correct ratio: Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska and North Dakota. And maybe (with rounding) it's not even that much different.
I mean, Delaware rounds DOWN... so their 973,000 people = 1 representative. Califormia gets 1 representative per 735,000 people.
So arguably, as a Delawarean, I am UNDER represented in the House. My vote counts less than a Californian.
So maybe the system does work and is more balanced than people realize.
California isn't America.
It’s changed. Decades in the making
Its a damn shame because it is geographically some of the most beautiful parts of this country. Its just that more than half of its people are worthless parasites.
Texas and Florida will both be as blue as California in 20-30 years.
There's nothing blue about the democrat party. They're more communist red than they've ever been.
If Florida flips any direction that way it will be because of the stupid ***** from up north moving here to south florida. They flee that overtaxed oppressive shithole they came from, then keep voting that way. Just like the morons fleeing California like roaches to Texas. Why? California is eating itself with that bullshit. So the dumbshits think voting for the same horseshit they left is a great idea. Don't bring your shithole with you when you move.
I'm not sure how you think decreasing the number of seats is an equitable idea.
Smaller states have plenty of power. Look at the population-adjusted representation Wyoming has compared to California, for example.