The keening and caterwauling we’ve been treated to by the left since Hillary Clinton’s defeat has been monumental. Most entertaining has been the snowflake retreat to “safe spaces” with puppies and coloring books to assuage their anguish.
Less entertaining were the violent protests which
were paid for erupted in cities across the nation.
Putting aside Jill Stein’s quixotic effort to force a recount, the left has been loudest with its demands to dismantle the Electoral College.
After all it’s unfair: Hillary Clinton won the “popular vote” so she should win, right?
Our Founders in their infinite wisdom created the Electoral College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented. Why should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?
The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the Internet and it should finally put an end to the argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense.
Share this with as many whiners as you can:
There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.
There are 62 counties in New York State.
Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.
Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)
Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3, 797,000 square miles.
When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country.