No. Think. Please. Unless you are some feudal fundamentalist who believes every acre should have an equal vote, not every person, it is not about comparitive areas coloured in.

Let me try a different way.

Imagine if you will a system whereby your president is decided by referendum. Everyone votes for their choice – directly. The votes are counted, and the winner is the one with the most votes. Really not so hard so far, one hopes.

Now, the vote of a US citizen in California, (with all his/her booklearnin’ and fancy ways) counts for exactly the same as the vote of a redneck with a fear of long words.

Also (and this is the bit I was trying to get across before) the vote of a widower rancher who’s isolated home makes him the only eligible voter in 200 square miles counts for exactly the same as one of twenty adults living in a tenement in Queens.

OK, so far so good – you’d agree that’s a fair system?

State boundaries, sizes, populations have nothing to do with this equation whatsoever.

Under this system, your man would have lost.

I am not purple, I know how the system DOES work, and I know why it is the way it is. I know that at the moment votes do not count equally, as if they did Trump would have lost. (I also know that population density is a massive red herring introduced by your ‘landmass’ argument, as all the college system looks at is population size).

I know he WON, woo hoo, hail to the friggin Chief etc, it doesn’t matter too much, except I am determined in a bloody minded way to give you that lightbulb moment.

The logical consequence – the math, if you like – of your argument is that the vote of 20 people in 20 square miles should count for more than 20 people in 1 square mile, because they spread out over more landmass. Maybe this mental block is a hangover from the frontier landgrab mentality, I don’t know. I am saying this hasn’t been thought through, and I dearly wish you would as you might stop insulting me when you do.

Tony, to be fair the petition is not to keep Trump out of the country. It very specifically says that.

It is to stop the Government organising a state visit – ie a formal and ceremonial audience with the Queen. Just as you wouldn’t expect a radical cleric to have such an honour, rushing the queen into having to endorse Trump in this way, so soon into the most controversial and devisive presidency in living memory is, the petition argues, inappropriate.

I know that the tabloids have reported something else, but this is the boring truth of the matter.

RpR, land doesn’t control anyone.

States are not relevant in a hypothetical majority vote system, and that would be the whole point.

Three states, or any state, would not have undue power, as who is President would no longer have anything to do with the power, size or demographic of any state. Quite the opposite of what you claim.

All hypothetical, but please take a moment.

While you are at it, in your mind step outside your parish and try to see it from a global perspective, taking the US as a democratic whole (which, while you have just one president, it is). Telling people on the outside that on the inside ‘ it’s complicated’ just begs the question ‘why not simplify it then’? Of course, that wouldn’t suit you personally, as the result might well have been different in this case.

It is not something anyone is suggesting should necessarily happen, but you still frustratingly miss the point. It is not ignorant to state a fact. You want to see ignorance? Try this: http://uk.businessinsider.com/poll-trump-popular-vote-republicans-hillary-clinton-2016-12

Donald Trump did not win the majority vote. There. I can picture you going purple over there. So.. Donald Trump did not win the majority vote. Childish maybe, but fun.

Reference to fictional characters, calling people ignorant or being bigotted to the point of gloating over the deaths of other human beings will not change that fact. If it has no relevance, why don’t you like people saying it?

Ok. I did. Thank you – I am culturally enriched (sarcasm – look that one up).

Mexicans who died had worthless lives..? Keeping this civil precludes me from commenting.

To be clear, the only statement I made about the US was that Trump did not win the popular vote. I do understand that you find people saying that offensive.

Obama did nothing similar. The Iraqi action was in response to very specific intelligence about an immediate threat – as I’m sure you know really.

Trump either did what he said he would – ban Muslims, very explicitly and clearly stated as a policy aim – or he didn’t. You cannot have it both ways, although avoiding the words ‘ban’ and ‘muslim’ in the EO was an attempt to.

Who are you quoting?

Why can’t people on the right get their head around the concept of a news organisation who have better things to do than pursue ‘something against’ anyone?

Lying your way into public office is not some clever way of taking the **** out of the media who call you out on it! I would suggest it’s taking the **** out of those that voted for the liar regardless.

Here’s an interesting map. A snapshot of who has signed the ‘No State Visit for Trump’ petition up to 5pm today, by percentage of constituents.

It doesn’t correlate to Conservative / Labour much, but it is interesting how our best seats of learning appear the most offended by the man – you can pick out Central Cambridge and Oxford on the map, and a definite Urban/Rural difference – but also some other surprising leanings – Rural Devon don’t like him much, in fact less than Merseyside.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]251055[/ATTACH]

Not when it comes to my children, John, no.