Is Trump The Chosen One?

In Presidential contests, a voter in Wyoming wields three times as much influence as one in California, New York, or Texas. Great deal if you live in Wyoming. Otherwise, not so much.

Please explain to me why how "well run" a state is should make any difference in the voting power of its inhabitants. It seems that whoever made those rankings--with an obvious conservative bias--focused only on state finances and ignored other equally important considerations, such as health care, wages, public services, etc. I would submit that a state with poor health care facilities is not "well run," and in fact, that glowing list of "well run" states contains ten that are ranked 35th or worse (Utah being the exception). Every state on that list ranks 30th or lower on per capita income, with only Florida and New Hampshire managing better than 35th.

So if you want to rely on one-dimensional statistics from a single, biased source to somehow (?) prove your "point" about the Electoral College, you're going to have to try harder than that. C-minus, and I'm being generous. Read your civics textbook before the next quiz.

Translation: Kevin believes LA County and NYC should be able to determine who is or isn't the president of the entire nation. To hell with the rest of the country.

The founding fathers got it right.

Yes, I believe that cities of 10,000,000 people should have more to say in the decision than, say, Laramie, Wyoming.

Bob, twisting someone's words is a third grade debate tactic, and you're not even doing it very skillfully. Every citizen should have an equal say and every citizen's vote should count the same. So yes, NYC, collectively, should count for much more than North Dakota or Delaware.

DUH.

One person, one vote it isn't a difficult concept to grasp. The modern Electoral College is an affirmative action program for conservative white males.  

The Electoral College was about preserving slavery for the South. I note Don Diego didn't quote this Madison passage, "The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.”

Many modern-day conservatives still identify as Confederates, so it should come as no surprise that they want to preserve anything that has to do with slavery. 

Well, Mark, you and I understand this, and having not slept through high school history class, we realize that the Electoral College is an artifact of slavery, but that doesn't mean that conservatives understand or acknowledge those basic facts. After all, the current number-one agenda of the Republican party is to keep them darkies from votin', or at least figure out a way that their votes won't count.

I'm amused but not surprised that conservatives are perfectly willing to tolerate unfairness when it works in their favor. Tucky Buckford, slouching on his couch and drinking his sixth Bud of the day, has more power than three of them no-good IMMERGRENTS in New York City (who were born here, but have brown or black skin). That's fundamentally unfair--and wrong.

Ref: Kevin Lewis post of 4:53pm, 25 August 2019

DonDiego's post of 11:33am comprised two sections.

The first section addressed the issue of the Founding Fathers instituting a Presidential Election methodology to intentionally over-represent the smaller States specifically to avoid "the tyranny of the majority".

As is his usual practice poor old DonDiego included a link to his source: The Reason for the Electoral College .

There was no "point to be proven" 

The second section addressed a ranking of the States based upon "financial condition".  The post included an explanation of the the factors included in the ranking-methodology. 

The Investors Daily piece summarized the results of a Mercatus Research study entitled Ranking the States by Fiscal Condition - 2018 Edition for anyone intereted in the details.

The second section was not intended to "prove" that the Founding Fathers were wise to grant less-populated States an edge in Electoral College representation.  It was just an observation that the less-populated States are over-represented among the "Best-Fiscally-Managed-States".  And poor old DonDiego supposes the Founding Fathers would not be surprised by that fact.

DonDiego apologizes for any misunderstanding.

P.S. DonDiego suggests that if one posts statistics such as "well-run" States or "states with poor health care facilities", one should include a link to the source of the supporting data, . . . sorta like what poor old DonDiego does.

I would have done so if anyone cared, but facts bounce off Trumpers effortlessly. Any source of data could be challenged on the grounds of what should count in the rankings. For health care, I went with medical facilities per 100,000 population and the number of insured and uninsured. For per capita income, I used US government stats.

I used to subscribe to the IBD, in point of fact. I looked at the article you mentioned. It was written on the premise that "well run" is equivalent to "fiscally sound." That would be the case if states were corporations, run for profit. However, they are not. Poor quality of life, low incomes, low life expectancy, and poor health care might all exist--and often do--in states that are fiscally sound. For instance, North Dakota collects huge tax revenues from the oil industry within its borders. But that doesn't mean quality of life there is any good.

I know the underlying premise behind your posit (which is not proved by your data) that the less populated states are better run--it's because the more populated states are full of them inferior races and states that are almost 100% white don't have to deal with their squallin' and yellin' about wanting to vote and not getting shot and all that nonsense.

It's very easy for a state to be fiscally sound if it does so by providing minimal social services. There are other ways, such as idaho's 6% sales tax on FOOD. Keeps the state coffers full, but disproportionately affects poor people (sales taxes are strongly regressive). So by the sole metric of fiscal soundness, Idaho might be considered "well run." But that's far from the whole story.

Kevin Lewis writes: 

"I know the underlying premise behind your posit (which is not proved by your data) that the less populated states are better run--it's because the more populated states are full of them inferior races and states that are almost 100% white don't have to deal with their squallin' and yellin' about wanting to vote and not getting shot and all that nonsense."

If Kevin Lewis believes that DonDiego thinks the smaller States are well run because "the more populated states are full of them inferior races", Kevin Lewis is mistaken.

its easy to manage the finances of your state when they are proped up by the Federal Government.   If the Ayn Rand states were forced to live by their own ideology they would look alot like Haiti.   So the next time you see a bridge get built in Mississippi make sure you thank a taxpayer in California (whose vote doesn't count as much).   

Ayn Rand hides under the couch when it comes to Federal Welfare for red states

Don Diego doesn't read very carefully. I said that that was YOUR premise, not mine. I think that YOU THINK that the smaller states are better run because they're whiter.