Population density is irrelevant apparently. Land mass is what matters when it comes to elections.dgs49 wrote: We have all seen U.S. maps by county, in which the "red" counties make up about 90% of the country, and the blue counties just a few pockets, yet the blue candidate won, because the blue areas are densely populated with unproductive people who look to government for comfort.
Despite very little attempt to do so, and many more attempts to simply gerrymander away opposition.dgs49 wrote:We republicans would WELCOME a change to proportionate allocation of electoral votes in each state - a much more "democratic" arrangement than what we have now.
And it's hilarious how you talk about making things more democratic while at the same time crying about things being too democratic. Otherwise you wouldn't have been complaining about how the less populated districts didn't count as much as the more populated ones.


