BUT GUYS, SHE WON THE POPULAR VOTE

Shouldn't these areas dictate to the rest of the country?

Other urls found in this thread:

brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2016/11/29/another-clinton-trump-divide-high-output-america-vs-low-output-america/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

What's up with shores and hillary?

Tend to be the most populated areas, thus spawning liberals and attracting niggers/spics.

Mestizos

Not hispanics

Mestizos

This map tells you where the niggers, spics, and jews live.

Oh dear, the gods have finally flooded Hyrule

I think Vermont is the prime exception to this, it's mountainous, landlocked and very white yet for some reason extremely leftist/socialist even compared to the rest of New England.

If the country looked like that, do you fucking realize how rich the remaining people would be?

Here's the answer: Very fucking.

Duck Tales. A-woo-hoo.

And yet their gun laws are surprisingly based

I mean, without having to pay for all the schools and roads and subsidies and welfare of the red states, the rest of the country could be a fucking utopia. We could build fucking wonders casually without all the dead weight.

How many counties did each candidate win exactly? Ought to be a sweet statistic

>"hillary got 1.5% more votes than trump"
>well, trump got 85% more counties than hillary

You could try but you wouldn't get much done in the couple of weeks you would have before everyone starves to death faggot.

This and what begs the question of who the real welfare queens are. Exploitative fuckers in their cozy bubbles.

Give it a rest CTR. She lost in a landslide. The rigging was in her favor to not make it look so bad. But basically she was BTFO'd in the popular vote. So go back to Langley and call it a day.

You lost.

Bigley.

You have no understanding of economics.

>more people than you have the capacity to grow your own food for, and thus have to import food
>utopia
pick one

Looking at this I'm actually hoping global warmingnis real.

are you retarded? OP is basically argumenting for your side

Why not just let California and New York dictate the whole world's policies?

What could possibly go wrong with placing all of your decision making in a few small places that don't even come close to covering the many diverse interests all over the globe?

Because the rest of it is full of idiot hillbilly's.

Autism speaks. We must be tolerant.

>tfw trying to imagine the tectonic plate configuration that could let such an island chain exist
>imagine what probable continental shift would do, what islands would fall first back into the ocean again and what islands might rise and whether there were predictable patterns in the voting bl
OH MY GOD IM A FUCKING AUTIST

This map proves that major cities are toxic to a free republic.

Not to mention how quickly their wealth would vanish anyway when they have no choice but to pay 200 dollars for a loaf of bread if that's what the "dead weight" decided they wanted to sell it for. Food is an absolute necessity so without their own supply the producers could charge them whatever the fuck they wanted for it.

Your cities produce nothing. They grow no food. They have no factories. They have no lumber, or coal, or oil. Nothing. We live in a system which was designed to plunder productive people, for the benefit of parasites. Outside of the resources, we have the plumbers, carpenters, mechanics, electricians...everything people need to live. You have your "studies" degrees, and work for companies which are purely parasitic in nature, siphoning off most of the nation's wealth, while producing none of it.

...

personally, I believe the vacant desert in the southwest should decide our presidential elections

You have a democrcary or something like it, don't you? Then "yes, they should".

sauce of map

That's where the invaders land

>Rural areas are more independent, and quite possibly would barely notice for several weeks if cities got annihilated in a nuclear holocaust
>Urban areas, by contrast, are highly dependent on the government and commerce and trade, and tend to be more collectivist as a result
>Population tends to cluster along water

Cities produce universities, IP, music, films, games, research... what is that now, about 70% of your economy?

>You have a democrcary
No, the designers of our government despised mob rule.

t. urbanite scum with "qualifications" in social justice

>hillbilly's
American education in action.

have you ever traveled threw the US

>Threw

Like poetry.

>Shouldn't these areas dictate to the rest of the country?

yo i think this logic doesn't really hold up for either side

"should these tiny parts of the country decide what happens to all the rest of it?"
people with significantly different lifestyles and opportunities maybe shouldn't have so much influence on others in different situations

versus

"should all these remote and sparsely populated areas decide what happens to the majority of the population?"
you're valuing fucking geography and land over people like in OP's image
it doesn't actually mean shit

Yes, because that's where a majority of people live.

looks like a heat map of where i'd concentrate my nukes

sorry republican schools not so good at teaching.

>threw
Are you a nigger or just a dumbass on par with Cletus in terms of academic prowess?

durrrhurrr but people are cities/states

>so I voted for corporatist trump.

Conservative logic.

>we should give one vote to each square mile of land instead of to each person

epic
p
i
c

meme trumplord

No not black just good old republican education. That is my point most of the states that voted republican are full of fucking idiots that believe what they are told and never think for themselves.

>good old republican education
You're just retarded on your own.

That is a cool map, but they guy who made it really missed an opportunity to rename the Great Salt Lake as Lake McMullin.

70% of the U.S. economy is video game and music sales?

TFW LIVE ON THE COAST IN A RED (REAL AMERICAN) COUNTY

>it's not people who vote, it's areas of land

Retard

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Electoral college, is just one of the rules that make the usa presidential voting system.

There is a rule that tell that an candidate would need to have more than 50% of the votes to win.
She got only 48%, at those cases the house of representatives would decide (between the top 3 most voted) to see who is the winner, they would decide by simple voting (pick the best from those 3 candidates, the most voted win), since they are mostly GOP, trump would win.

>threw
Like with a cloth?

>corporatist trump
>citation needed on how he helps create regulations for corporate conglomerates to stamp out competition.

>it's areas of land
If that was the case, eletoral college would be based on state area not state population.

What vote are usa states citizens, not usa citizens, or state area.

Receiving points based on state area would be better.

>Receiving points based on state area would be better.
why
that would be terrible

well the school had me on the ab hone roll most my high school year so whos fault is it really

You were a good hoop jumper then. Schools aren't for only for education they're brainwashing institutes to make unwavering loyal citizens. It doesn't matter if it's Republican or Socialist it's always supported by both sides for this.

Popular vote only due to voter frauds.

Then there is an Commiefornia effect - in some states it is worthless to vote, if republican, so people even do not come...
(What could be spared, if only battle-ground states voted?)

Actually - Electoral college (same as what is in European parliament, where our small country has fixed 21 seats regardless of circumstances...) is there to prevent federal level from single state forging elections by allowing foreigners to vote, by accepting fraud mail-in votes (Nevada), by counting Clinton votes 6 times (Detroit), by rigging machines... These rogue states can steal only their own part, like Commiefornia only 55 electors out of total, regardless of fraud scale...

how often does voter fraud happen?

dude i live in PA a state without voter ID laws but they didn't allow me to vote without showing them my ID

On the other hand - land area does not vote, citizens do.

Having a map, where optically a sparsely populated Nevada desert is more "visually" important than a New York City with many millions of people is also a fraud...

Enjoy the Dragon - counties scaled by population size and collored by election prefference...

also the correlation between voter ID laws and voting Hillary are so fucking obvious

this is so ridiculous i can't believe i'm replying a second time to you're dumb ass

>but they didn't allow me to vote without showing them my ID
Did you try to vote without showing your ID? They wouldn't have stopped you.

> but they didn't allow me to vote without showing them my ID
and so the Trump won in PA...

Please wake up.

Clinton is bankster and sheik puppet candidate, corrupted as hell, and is anything but Left.

Trump is actually National Socialist (give people work, rebuild nation, protect economy by tariffs and PLAN and force them returning to home country) and is (or rather his promises) actually more leftist than Clinton or GOP itself...

Mi gusta con democratos, no migra, no deportato

And you can compare it with 2012 elections...
(Image from some Wikipedia page of those 2012 elections...)

Yes, but also not an accurate map

Suburbanites and rural dwellers are most just drug addled working class folk who were fucked by capitalism.

Unfortunately they place their aggression on minorities instead of the government often so it makes it hard to sympathize with them.

On that same note theres a reason why large universities such as Stanford are paying grads to move to rural areas to help stimulate Industry, because there is nothing outside of low paying manual labor for the majority.

Which are the arreas, that generates GDP?????, do they match with the popular vote

she likes to face c word.

>white nationalism is not possible

Most of the land belongs to whites. Spics and niggers are merely renters.

You have no idea who votes one way and what the various regions of the US produce.

Daily reminder that counties that voted for Hillary represent 64% of U.S. GDP.

brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2016/11/29/another-clinton-trump-divide-high-output-america-vs-low-output-america/

...

>all the super rich voted for clinton
This isn't news

underrated post

>I deserve to win because popular vote
>literally opposed by people who control 99% of the landmass

>wal mart loses its supply line
>rural areas starve out within a few weeks

> It's not the United States, it's the California Union Of States

Well yes but the point is the half or so that voted for her are more successful

Didn't know land could make decisions.

>successful
plantation owners you mean. Parasites living off the rest of the country.

>rich jews voted for clinton
>the poor voted for the candidate who represents them most and wants to help them become wealthy

dumb beaner

Look at all those hotspots of liberalism, and then realize that those areas will be underwater in a few years. They will be forced to migrate inward. They will enter our land and try to change our lifestyle to accommodate them. It's going to get bloody.

I don't properly understand the significance of the fact that without the electoral college only certain areas will dictate the rest of the country.

I know the US isn't a direct democracy but, if the majority of people vote for a particular candidate, then it's not really an area or state picking the candidate, it's the people themselves isn't it?

Or is there something I'm missing in relation to the states and their electors?

Help pls

Except the very wealthy ones probably own a lot of the land in those areas already.

true, but they won't be inviting the millions of other people in those hotspots to move in with them.

It is because the idea that electors is meant to protect lower population states is bullshit. The simple fact that electors are distributed based on population size should burst that bubble but many people are too fucking stupid to get it. They exist because the vote originally wasn't given to the people and they didn't want to have congress vote for the president.

The senate exists to protect states, that is why every state regardless of population gets 2.

If only a few densely populated cities decide elections, candidates will campaign only in these cities and make promises to help these demographics. This will lead to centralization which is death sentence for a federation.
Kinda like what happened in Russia after the tax code made it lucrative to register all companies in Moscow. All the representative power of regions went away in 8 years.

Well they generally have more money than the other guys.

It is not as if new cities aren't going to be built or expanded that will essentially become the new liberal hotspots.

Thanks user

That is the trend. As California and NY get more and more of the share of electors they will become more important for winning the electoral college.

Although it already is the case that only a few states are campaigned in and everyone else is ignored.

>tfw I live on South Texas island

so they created a system in which the few dictate to the many

This is one of the most amazing map I've ever seen.

Overdue for tsunami.

Check m80

Thats where the fags used to get married. Its full of homos.